GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the developments we are currently witnessing in Iraq are, in some ways, reminiscent of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. Once the totalitarian regime that had suppressed them had been toppled, all internal forces were unleashed, sometimes violently. It is the same with Iraq. Under these circumstances, an ‘I told you so’ attitude or gloating is inappropriate and unwarranted; rather, the situation is something for us to be concerned about. A regime of criminals has been ousted and that is a good thing, and it was necessary, but we are certainly not on a direct road to peace, stability and the rule of law. That is why the Europeans need to play a part. In my view, it is not enough to point out to the Americans the obvious fact that they are incapable of restoring peace by military means alone. That is why Europe’s hour has come. We must provide help. It is our responsibility, and it is also in our interests to do so. I therefore want to say this to Commissioner Patten: he can count on the support of the CDU/CSU delegation in this House, both for his commitment and for the fact that we must put our money where our mouths are – for it will cost money. We will have to justify why we are spending the money. So let me say again: it is in our interests to make an effective contribution, together with the United Nations and, of course, with the United States of America and Great Britain, to support the road towards peace, stability and the rule of law in Iraq.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I, too, should like to thank Mr Bolkestein, for whom I have no questions. I would merely like to retrace our steps in this debate for a moment to, when talking about petitions and the gargantuan ventures brought about by globalisation, I made an analogy: the citizen and the giant. There is an enormous discrepancy between the citizen and the giant. Parliament should now ask itself what it can to do protect citizen’s rights. This is a situation – as Mr Perry has made very clear by mentioning a case in point – which affects many citizens who have gone bankrupt. There are a large number of trials under way in the United States and some in Europe too with many in the United Kingdom. How can we not wonder what the solution to this situation is and how it will develop? How can we not ask Parliament, how can we not even ask ourselves what we should do to resolve this situation? Lloyd’s of London is a large institution, which still enjoys worldwide credibility, but clearly, at some point, something happened, there was some error, because, otherwise, there would not have been this proliferation of cases reported by the citizens. There are now those who are calling for a committee of inquiry to be set up and those who oppose this, but it is not a problem that must be resolved in court, not least because we do not want to start legal proceedings, because we are not qualified to start proceedings and because we do not want there to be adverse parties. All we want to do is respond to the requests of the citizens, because this is our mandate: a mandate of representation that we must fulfil completely by representing both the citizens and institutions such as Lloyd’s of London. I therefore do not intend to criminalise anybody. Instead, I want to understand why this situation exists. If the Commission’s reply, when it arrives, is not comprehensive, then only an inquiry which we can carry out without any pressure will reveal the crux of the matter, the gap, the loophole through which this great mistake, which has caused so much harm, managed to slip.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have to say that I was more than a little surprised to hear Commissioner Nielson's opening remarks. He said that the poverty in Iraq at the moment is a result of the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war and ten years of international sanctions. I heard no mention whatsoever that Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people. Nor was there any reference to the fact that Iraq has a corrupt dictatorship which represses freedom, stifles initiative and siphons off money that was intended for food and medicines for its own people under the oil-for-food programme, but is instead used by Saddam to build more of his own palaces. We must be clear that the villain of this piece is Saddam Hussein – full stop! Any weakening of that position will make war more, not less, likely. Commissioner Nielson also said that this is not an institutional problem, but then he gave us an institutional solution. He said that we could solve all these problems by more QMV. QMV will not create the political will to have common policies. We should have a common foreign and security policy – not a single policy but a common policy. We all have our views on how it is that the common policy set in Copenhagen has suddenly somewhat disintegrated. The French President is very good at the rhetoric of European cooperation, but not so good at the practical aspects and seems to think common policies apply to everyone but him. Nonetheless, we must have a common policy. That much is very clear. Let us remind ourselves that Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is already in breach of UN resolutions and has been for over ten years and that any obstruction will lead to serious consequences. We have to be united in accepting that those serious consequences will follow. Any weakening of that position runs the risk of undermining world global security. If we are to resolve this situation we need less name-calling and a more coherent approach.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate you. This is a genuine Parliament and we are embarking on a debate. I believe that we should be grateful for that. Mrs Schreyer, I agree with you and I am very pleased that agricultural expenditure will in fact have to fund this last SAB. But I also take you at your word when you say that we are going to take great care in the budget to ensure that the reassignments do not alter the priorities that the European Parliament has set. The examples which I gave earlier were, curiously, genuine priorities. And I take your word so that in 2000, as part of a joint effort, which is much more intense and much more open, we may from the outset prevent priorities such as the Baltic regions or actions in favour of children from being the first to be affected, because there is a suspicion that it is perhaps not you who do not want to carry them out, but rather other powers which are behind it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I submitted a series of amendments which principally endeavoured to enshrine the principle of gender mainstreaming in the Sixth Research Framework Programme, which is in any case the largest programme, for which we are voting approximately EUR 17 billion. Concentration on other topics has meant, as Mrs Fraisse has already explained, that there has been less research into gender issues and less emphasis upon opening science and research to the full range of people with the right potential. In 1999, 66% of the research workers in the State sector and 72% of those in higher education were men. In only a few countries did the proportion of women exceed 40%, and that was in Ireland and Greece. Only in Portuguese higher education, with 53%, was a balance achieved. Women are particularly underrepresented, at 9%, in academic teaching posts in Germany. The highest levels were in Finland with 36%. It is therefore in the European interest and adds value if women are involved in research and teaching at every stage, from planning, via decision-making to project management, as well as in EU initiatives for prizes and competitions in all disciplines. I had already demanded this in this House in connection with the McNally Report on women and science, and, in order to implement it, the Commission set up a Gender Unit, which now has some early successes to show. Focused efforts have achieved a percentage of nearly 40% of women involved in the EU's research bodies and the same proportion receiving Marie Curie scholarships. We must, then, build on the successes of the Fifth Research Framework Programme, one contribution to which might be the doubling of the budget in the 'Science and Society' subdivision, and here, too, there is a need for research into gender issues. One final remark: In my language, the entire draft has to be revised in gender-neutral language, because we are setting the course for the future, above all for young women scientists.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, economic clout cannot be the only factor that determines the European Union’s status in the world. One of the EU’s distinguishing features is our systematic approach to human rights, as exercised both within the Union and by our partners. The European Parliament has been at the forefront of the battle to promote and defend human rights, and it has succeeded in overcoming the limits imposed by self-interest and “national interests”, which are sometimes reflected in the positions adopted by the Member States and even by other European Union institutions. We can therefore safely say, for example, that the European Parliament has never allowed the situation in East Timor to be forgotten, which could have been the greatest obstacle to finding an equitable solution for its people, who always opposed occupation by Indonesia. By the same token we have recently opposed arms sales to Indonesia, a stance that the Council unfortunately did not take into account. But it is not just a question of preventing or putting a stop to sickening instances of aggression perpetrated by individuals or institutions against those in a weaker position. It is vital that when violations are committed, the perpetrators should not be able to act with impunity, whoever or wherever they may be – in Indonesia or Angola, in Cuba, China or Burma, whether the perpetrators are civilians or soldiers, humble foot-soldier or general or even a minister. Justice needs to be done in Indonesia. Justice needs to be done in East Timor. President Wahid needs our support to cope with the difficult situation he is faced with. The specific reference in this resolution to East Timor, on the initiative of the PPE Group, is a timely one. Someone must be held to account for the events that took place there, some of which I saw with my own eyes as a representative of this House; they cannot go unpunished. It is impossible to talk about East Timor without mentioning the tens of thousands of Timorese refugees living on Indonesian soil in inhumane conditions, under the control of Indonesian soldiers and militias, and being used as bargaining chips. This is an intolerable situation which must cease as a matter of urgency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to present today, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, the second reading of Supplementary and Amending Budget No 2/2002. The Commission and the Council have suggested we should charge off as much as EUR 10.5 billion in outstanding payments in this SAB. This represents an enormous under-utilisation of available resources, which will be returned to Member State coffers in the form of reimbursements, even though the relevant expenditure commitments have not been cancelled. Moreover, the Commission has not prepared any plan to reabsorb unused payments from 2001, nor stated whether some of the unused appropriations from 2001 correspond to commitments from 2000, and which could consequently be reallocated to 2003 under the forfeiture clause, and whether it would thus be possible to release any appropriations that have been written off. In the first reading Parliament refused to accept this situation, and tabled amendments to provide a EUR 4.5 billion boost for programmes with the highest outstanding appropriations. The EU's commitments must be honoured, and we cannot allow, now or in the future, transfers to thwart the proper implementation of the budget as approved by the financial authority. Following Parliament's first reading, the Commission, although aware of the gravity of the situation, declared that it could not, at least for the moment, use the extra appropriations effectively or concretely. The Committee on Budgets took note of the declarations, showing a great sense of responsibility – partly because it wanted to strengthen appropriate cooperation with the Commission and the Council – and decided to take account of this situation. Accordingly, in an extraordinary meeting held yesterday, it decided not to endorse the budget amendments tabled in the first reading. Instead it called on the Commission to commit to presenting an assessment of the situation by 30 September next and to propose at that time any measures needed to address the total transfers and supplementary budget. The other institutions also need to emulate the sense of responsibility displayed by Parliament here today, since we cannot disguise the fact that there is now more than EUR 100 billion in outstanding commitments and that the Community budget needs to be managed more efficiently, consistently and transparently. In view of the above reasons and comments, I would ask you to vote for the SAB 2/2002 report as adopted by the Council and for the amendments to the draft resolution tabled by the Committee on Budgets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are many citizens of the European Union for whom quality of life is just a mirage. They waste too much time in city traffic and have too little time left to be with their children; they work under terrible conditions and have no green spaces or leisure areas to rest in; they waste days in hospital queues and wrestle with civil service red tape. In our cities we rush along and lose sight of our well-being. Environmental noise must be brought into this lamentable picture. It is present throughout the day, making life even more tiring, and it is present at night, disturbing our well-earned rest. Unfortunately, more and more European citizens are being affected by environmental noise. Despite this, however, the European Union has been slow to apply a common policy on the subject of noise. It took five years to put forward a proposal for harmonised European noise indicators. It is unacceptable that we should have to wait five more years to set the noise limits to be applied throughout the European Union. I therefore agree with the rapporteur, Mr De Roo, when he proposes that we should waste no more time and transform this directive on the assessment and management of noise into a binding framework directive. The noise that most disturbs people’s sleep is that caused by night-time air traffic. The lack of common standards in the European Union has caused situations of clearly unfair competition between airports and a lack of equality among the citizens of different Member States. It is, therefore, essential that binding limits should be set on aircraft noise near airports. I believe, however, that Amendment No 36 is not the most sensible way to go about this. In any case, I congratulate the rapporteur on the work he has done.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this financial perspective must enable us to live up to the ambitions that we have for Europe, ambitions that require us to seek increased growth and competition. To this end, we need to spend less, but spend better. Reform is therefore necessary, not to enable us to do everything nor to continue the ‘sprinkling’ approach that we have adopted so far, but to enable us to meet the expectations of the public. Meeting the expectations of the public means quite simply, for example in employment policy, not having any more of these policies of providing secondary assistance or patching up the crutches that are already available. Because if we want to create 15 million jobs, we will need to innovate under the Lisbon Agenda and implement new policies that are original and dynamic and that foster private initiative. We will need to educate, inform the public, pursue these policies that we have started to implement, policies that generate jobs, and in addition accelerate structural reforms. We will need to promote investment in infrastructure, in transport, in communications, in human resources and in research, which is still being left out in the cold and whose budget is in my view far from adequate. Let us nevertheless bear in mind that all of this should meet an objective of sustainable development, a factor in creating stability. And let us refrain from making scapegoats of certain groups of society, such as our poor farmers, because we really do need them and they need us. Clearly, we find the proposals that the Commission has made to us reassuring, and I would particularly like to welcome the proposals for the new regional policy put forward by Commissioner Barnier. The choice that has been made seems to me to be an excellent one, because it will provide the enlargement countries with the necessary support without isolating the regions in the current Member States that need these funds. We must actually continue to meet the needs of the areas covered by the present fifteen Member States, fostering their competitiveness and growth so as to fight against unemployment. Were we not to do so then the public would simply not understand.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr McCartin has drawn up an excellent report on matters that Parliament focused its attention on when it granted discharge for 2000. I wish to express my sincerest thanks for that. The way the EU budget is implemented is still unsatisfactory. This is particularly true of the way the Structural Funds programmes are implemented, which does not meet the requirements of good administration any more than it does the expectations of the public. The situation only got worse from 2000 to 2001 and the trend continued into 2002. In 2000, EUR 6.5 billion in Structural Funds appropriations remained unspent, in 2001 the figure was 10.5 billion, and last year it was 8.1 billion. The amount in unpaid commitments in respect of the Structural Funds has grown to EUR 66.7 billion, which is the equivalent of the budget for two years. The situation is very alarming. The Commission has been totally incapable of improving its administration: indeed, the situation is entirely beyond remedy. The EU’s structural policy has to be thoroughly reviewed; this programming period threatens to be a real catastrophe. The review of staff regulations that began in 2000 and is still going on is one of the most important of the reforms. In the opinion of my group it is important that the staff regulations should support the key objectives of administrative reform: improved efficiency, clarification of staff responsibilities with increased accountability, and the downward delegation of power. It must be the obligation of every official to apply the whistle blowing procedure where necessary. On the other hand, everyone must also be accountable for his or her actions in the sense that people must face the consequences of making groundless personal accusations. The European Union must not become a place of espionage. There must be a more natural and swifter way to claw back EU funds paid out for no good reason. The present system is unwieldy and arbitrary, as is shown in the report by Jan Mulder, which we are to discuss next. Unfortunately, the Member States and the Commission are often on opposite sides of the negotiating table, even though they should really be on the same side. I think the practice initiated by Mr McCartin of providing yearly follow-up with regard to the reports on discharge is appropriate, because it brings a long-term quality to Parliament’s monitoring of the Commission.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Sørensen’s report concerns the European Development Fund, so let us talk about development. I was taken to Falcone-Borsellino airport in Palermo by the leader and representative of the Sicilian division of the Pensioners’ Party, Mr Mario Collesano. While we were talking about the report on the European Development Fund, he advised me not only to vote for it but also to ask Parliament what happens to the funding for development, for we know that the money invested in the development of the regions of southern Italy, for example, has left Brussels and Strasbourg but has never reached the European citizens of Sicily, Calabria or the regions of southern Italy, or the European citizens of many other regions whose development is lagging behind, for that matter. - Blak report (A5-0074/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like in turn to thank Mrs de Palacio for her comments. We obviously have confidence in her ability to ensure maritime safety because she must know that not a week passes without our being asked what, as Members of the European Parliament, we are doing to ensure safety and to change the rules. I have two questions. Regarding the Erika I package, have you received any replies from the Member States about how precisely they wish to invest and to increase the number of their inspectors, because there is no doubt that, if they do not increase their number, everything that has been decided here will serve little purpose. Regarding the Erika II package, I shall confine myself to one question in the form of an observation, although there are so many to be made! I am very happy to hear you speak of a European coastguard service. Is this really an idea which has had its day, because there are an enormous number of people who support it? Might the setting up of the European Maritime Agency be regarded as the beginnings or basis of a European coastguard service?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, with reference to the smooth running of Parliament and the safety of the Members, I would like to inform you that, during the last Strasbourg part-session, on Wednesday evening to be precise, the Member from Forza Italia, Mr Mario Mantovani, slipped on the steps and fractured his left foot while taking his suitcases down to the taxi outside Parliament. He stayed on to vote on Thursday morning and then his foot was put in plaster. He will not be able to take part in our work for 60 days. On the one hand, a representative of the Pensioners’ Party might welcome the presence of invalids – another pensioner perhaps – but, on the other, I would like all our Members to be safe. I therefore ask you when a lift or an escalator will be installed, so that we will be able to go down to the cars at the end of the day in safety.

Political group: PPE-DE