GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the request of the Council, the European Commission has produced a communication on the need to undertake the rapid development of a consistent space strategy in conjunction with the European Space Agency. Like the rapporteur, Mr Alyssandrakis, I welcome this and I also congratulate him on his excellent work as rapporteur. The Commission is proposing to strengthen the foundations of its space activities by developing scientific knowledge. The rapporteur stresses the need to develop further the technological basis. In my view, all this involves substantial public support, financial support, although support, other than financial, may be required. The Sixth Framework Programme on Research, for which I am the general rapporteur, meets this requirement in part, by making space and aeronautics one of its seven priorities and granting it a budget of just over EUR 1 billion. In my report, I also proposed measures to train researchers and engineers, both in the field of space and in other areas, in order to resolve problems relating to their mobility, which are exacerbated by the physical distance between sites. My last point is to mention the dangers of the militarisation of space. There are risks, undoubtedly, but I do not think that we can undertake military activities when our goal is to prevent or to manage conflicts in order to keep or find peace. Nevertheless, our priority must be to develop further the use of space for purposes of general interest and public service.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this short debate takes place against a background of increasing tension in Zimbabwe. All of us who speak should remember that every word of our speeches and the resolution will be eagerly read in Zimbabwe within the next 48 hours by all sides. We must, therefore, all encourage Zimbabwe to move towards elections in May. The old parliament was dissolved on 11 April and President Mugabe pledged at the EU-Africa Summit in Cairo that the elections would go ahead. It is therefore worrying that constituency boundaries have yet to be set. This could take up to three months. I hope that, when the elections are called, observers from Europe will be invited to Zimbabwe to monitor the proceedings. This would show real transparency. It is not for Europe to meddle in the internal affairs of any nation. African countries must work together to consolidate their future. However, the old Lomé Convention made democracy, human rights and the rule of law a requirement for development aid. The new Partnership Agreement goes further and asks for good governance. All we ask is that disputes of any kind be settled through courts and not in open conflict. I particularly highlight land issues. Zimbabwe has much to gain from the Partnership Agreement and urgently needs aid and debt relief. Much of this could go to rural areas for agreed land resettlement. It is disappointing that Zimbabwe feels the need to be involved in the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo at a time when precious resources could be spent on domestic requirements, such as education and health. We all look forward to the rule of law being strengthened and a democratisation process fully operating under an independent judiciary to allow civil society to express its wishes through a fair and open press. The Zimbabwean people must be given a chance to choose their future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, over the last few days the European Union has faced – indeed it is still facing – two crucial political questions which bear on its common foreign and security policy. The question of the International Criminal Court on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity did not, I think, receive the best attentions of the Council of the European Union. Now we have the crisis in Iraq, which really must be given the Council's best attentions. And just what does that mean? The UN and its decision-taking procedures have underpinned the international legal order for the last 50 or 60 years and have been used to resolve the most serious of political issues. We must not rock this boat under any circumstances, because finding a new legal order to underpin international relations will not be an easy or straightforward matter. This being so, when faced with varying opinions on how to deal with the problem of Iraq, the European Union must not under any circumstances go beyond the bounds set by UN Security Council resolutions. Secondly, it must lay down limits, down to the last detail, on how far we can go in controlling Saddam Hussein's arsenal. However, if it turns out that he has no weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to produce them, it must have a ready, unconditional answer to the question of the embargo, while monitoring developments to ensure that Saddam Hussein or anyone else in Iraq does not revert to procedures involving weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, we must admit that, as the European Union, we ought to be independent when it comes to certain decisions with crucial international implications. We cannot just fall in with whoever happens to be in power in America at the time, with the Clinton administration taking one tack and the Bush administration taking another. And, the investigation to find out if Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction should extend to anyone who has provided materials or know-how. They too must take their share of the blame. Finally, let us not forget the millions who are suffering, let us not forget the children who are dying and let us not forget that we, the European Union, must not be inhumane.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Directive is a constituent part of a strategy to combat the noise nuisance at airports and in the areas around them – an issue very close to the public's heart. The strategy's objective is that quieter aircraft must be brought into service and noise charges must become more effective in environmental terms. That is already happening at many airports in the Community, but not by a long way at all of them. The Commissioner is right to say that each Member State has quite different criteria for differentiating between charges and measuring the amount of perceived noise. There is a real need for harmonisation. Thus far, the Directive makes sense. It will at one and the same time make for greater transparency and more equal treatment, and make the charges payable by the airlines more predictable, so that, as well as of course markedly improving protection against noise, it will have an incidental effect on competition. The proposal for a directive does, however, have one grave defect, and now I want to sound the same warning note as Mr Jarzembowski in saying that it makes for downward harmonisation, albeit involuntarily. For the proposal for a directive forces the progression to tail off to such a degree that it can no longer be called a perceptible incentive, and that cannot be the objective of our policy on noise and the environment. Frankfurt, London, Paris, Munich, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Rome, Madrid, and Stuttgart have other systems of charging for noise, which result in markedly better protection against it, and these must be retained, yet it is precisely that which the Commission proposal would prevent if not amended to some degree. Why is this so? There is no effective economic incentive unless noise charges increase markedly and progressively – and, I emphasise, markedly and progressively – in line with the increase in noise volume. Quiet aircraft must therefore benefit and loud aircraft must incur substantial charges. Whatever harmonisation is needed, our objective must still be to keep Europe's standards of noise prevention as high as possible. My group has therefore reintroduced three amendments, which make it clear that charging systems that are already in existence and are more effective in environmental terms, are to be retained. I ask the whole House to support these amendments. It would indeed be absurd to penalise airports that provide far better protection against noise than that which has hitherto been proposed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I, too, should like to thank the rapporteurs for their work and congratulate them on the result, especially Mr Casaca, who this year took care of discharge to the Commission. What is remarkable about this debate is that, on the eve of next year's European elections, we once more have a Commission which has not received a positive Statement of Assurance from the European Court of Auditors. Nevertheless, my group will align itself with those who wish to grant discharge. What are our reasons for doing this in spite of that negative, or non-existent, Statement of Assurance? First of all, many reports by the Court of Auditors have revealed that there have been improvements in the administration of the Commission. Secondly, a Financial Regulation has been adopted. We believe that that Regulation must be given time and chance to take effect, and we are giving the Commission time to do that. Our third argument for granting discharge is that, if we do not do so at the present juncture, on the eve of enlargement, it will make an extremely bad impression on the new Member States: that is to say, that we are in effect packing the Commission off home. Nor could we do that. Our final argument for giving discharge is that we have found the attitude of the Commission towards this Parliament very positive in recent years. Requests for information have met with a satisfactory and timely response, and even the response to Parliament’s own-initiative reports has been positive. Consequently, we recommend discharge. The crucial question for us remains: what does the Commission need to do in order to obtain a positive Statement of Assurance? The Court of Auditors does not say in its reports. Every year another surprise awaits as to what they have to say, and another whole list of things that are going wrong emerges. I think that it is good that the Commission is now entering into discussions with the Court of Auditors, and that it is then going to inform Parliament of the criteria and timetable it intends to keep to in order to obtain a positive Statement of Assurance. I should like to say a little about agriculture. The most striking feature of current agricultural policy is that it is no longer based on price support, but rather on income support – the integrated administration and control system. The irritating thing is that this is applied differently in different European countries. That is unacceptable. In a united Europe, the systems should be the same. I would therefore draw the attention of the Commission once more to an own-initiative report – which it so happens was drawn up by me, but was approved by plenary session – in which we point out that, if the administration of agricultural expenditure in the new and existing Member States concerned is not in order, the Commission must suspend advance payments much more often until the system is in order, instead of carrying out controls after the event and imposing penal charges.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the second time now that I have spoken in an hour –– a rare thing! Now I can slow down some time in the autumn. I am glad that at last we are to have a common EU policy on air transport, because the current situation is absolutely idiotic and therefore needs a complete overhaul. Last year’s ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities was very positive news. Before that the United States of America had a real stranglehold on the Member States, owing to bilateral agreements. The open skies agreements have prevented mergers between our airlines because no flights have been allowed to the United States from any country other than one in which the European airline is registered. The impossibility of mergers has kept our air services market fragmented, which in turn has nibbled away at our airlines’ competitiveness and led to high prices. Once again the interests of consumers have been eclipsed by the benefits achieved. Instead of the narrow, national approach, we should realise that national airlines are not an end in themselves but inexpensive and efficiently organised flights are, because the customer, the European, is always right. That is why we should greet civilised globalisation with open arms in this sector too and harness it for the benefit of our citizens. The Commission’s proposals regarding air service agreements are therefore entirely appropriate. I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Schmitt, for his thorough and pragmatic approach. When autumn comes the birds fly to the south. If we allow airline competition to increase, less well-off Europeans will also be able to fly down with them.

Political group: PPE-DE
The award of contracts, services and supplies by public tender accounts for more than 14% of European GDP. In spite of this, the sphere of public contracts and tenders has reaped few benefits from the creation of the internal market. While it is true that these directives are very important for the equilibrium of the internal market and crossborder awards, the greatest benefit of these directives does not reside in this fact, but in the opportunity they provide for promoting sustainable development. Environmental and social objectives must be built in to public tenders and contracts. It is unfortunate that neither the proposal for a directive nor Mr Zappalà’s report grant public bodies the right (not to mention the obligation) to choose a given service or product by public tender on the basis of its sustainability. I therefore support the amendments intended to grant public bodies this right. It is hard to accept the fact that, on the one hand, through its European sustainable development strategy and the commitments undertaken at Johannesburg, the EU acknowledges that environmental costs must be factored into the economy, while, on the other, it prohibits the Member States from basing their acquisitions policies on that same principle.

Political group: PPE-DE
I base my supplementary question on Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that: 'Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.' Member States must adhere to directives laid down by the EU, and France is clearly contravening, rather than adhering to, directives that are laid down in law. Would the Council representative therefore pursue this matter in the Council and consider bringing France before the Court of Human Rights?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to ask you, today being a special day, to apologise to the President of the Republic of France for the absence of some Members since, in the case of those who come from countries a long way from the centre of the European Union, their absence is not due to a lack of will but rather the lack of the means to carry out their parliamentary duties properly. I am sure that he will understand very well that there is no justification for the fact that from certain parts of my country, for example, it is more difficult, and takes longer, to get to Strasbourg than to Caracas. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Purvis, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has participated with interest in this work aimed at the future. We have produced an opinion that is forward-looking and constructive, and, at the same time, balanced. We wish to take into consideration the principle of safety when it comes to consumers, the work of farmers, and the whole food processing chain. Our first message is that biotechnology is one way of developing agriculture, which is now struggling with problems. It offers opportunities for the production of non-food goods, such as new biofuels, plastics, and so on. It offers opportunities for using fewer pesticides and having a positive impact on the environment. What is essential for farmers is that they should derive some financial benefit when the new technology is introduced. That has not happened in the United States with regard to what are called first generation genetically modified products. The European aim must be to improve the financial position of farmers by achieving better quality and efficiency through the use of technology. Biotechnology could have immense importance for regional policy. It offers opportunities for regions where natural conditions are harsh. This also applies to the situation in the developing countries. On the other hand, there are dangers associated with new technology, which are worth bearing in mind as early on as possible in any decision-making policy of the EU. Farmers may become dependent on large, multinational companies in the processing industry. To prevent the concentration of development, the EU must guarantee there are adequate public resources available for research, and support research and development in small biotechnological enterprises and plant-breeding institutes. It will be very important to guarantee competition. Our committee is satisfied with the work of Mr Purvis and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, as our amendments were taken account of at the committee stage. We would hope that the Commission will read carefully those requests that appear in the report inter alia to measure the net impact on the environment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, you have given me an answer about European economic policy and the practice in the Member States and the Commission on this. With the current state of the euro I believe the problem is not one of economic policy, and other answers need to be given. If I could make your answer more comprehensive, I would add the evidence that dollars are being systematically purchased from Europe, an extraordinary investment in the United States, and if I governed this country I would be extremely concerned. In any case, the fall in the euro is favouring European exports enormously, which is not detrimental to Europe. But I do not think you know how to explain this or you dare not do so, and anyway, the fundamental problem with the fall in the euro in fact lies in the lack of confidence in a common policy, because the Member States resist accepting the strategic and political reality of the euro’s actual existence.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the guidelines rightly stress employability, i.e. the possibility for job seekers to actually do the job they are applying for. But we must never forget that this is just a possibility. Between this possibility and the reality of the job itself everything will depend on the state of job vacancies in society. On this subject, the guidelines speak of enterprise spirit. They are right but, in order to flourish, the entrepreneur needs favourable policy, low interest rates, a competitive euro and, above all, he needs to know the relationship between a given business activity and the number of job offers. This is the fundamental problem of the relationship between employment levels and growth. You acknowledge that with growth at less than 2.4% there was no reduction in employment. France is currently refuting this diagnosis thanks to its policy of reducing working hours, which is still too cautious. Let us hope that this policy is intensified and that it is extended in a coordinated fashion to Europe as a whole. Finally, there is one form of enterprise which is particular good at creating jobs; i.e. cooperatives, associations, the third sector. This sector merits a special status, particularly as regards taxation, and this is the subject of the amendments which we are putting to you.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my great satisfaction at the fact that this debate is being held today and that we have reached this stage. I feel that thanks are due, in particular, to Commissioner de Palacio, Commission Vice-President, who is here today. This result has been achieved thanks to her perseverance and to the contribution of many others, including the European Parliament. As I said, this, for me, is reason for great satisfaction. I hope that, just as she has succeeded in overcoming such great resistance, she will also be able to overcome the resistance put up by the Council and bring the project to a successful conclusion within the set time frame. In particular, I would like to tell you that I have called repeatedly upon the Commission in the past not to let itself be stopped in its tracks by a privileged elite such as the air traffic controllers, who, I am sad to say, are more interested in preserving their privileged conditions than making a practical contribution to the safety of the entire population of the European Union. Sadly, we have had proof in the past of the negligence and laxity of air traffic controllers, which have claimed many victims, and the fact that this is due partly to the lack of a single airspace shows how important and necessary it is to resolve the matter without delay.

Political group: PPE-DE
No leadership will last if it is not credible. Thus, a year after we led the Johannesburg Summit, our credibility now depends first of all on our ensuring that the goals and timetables of the implementation plan that came out of Johannesburg are achieved through our action at home. The truth is that, one year on, the European Union Member States that have begun to transpose the Johannesburg commitments into their national policies are few and far between. Secondly, it depends on our action abroad, to endow the Johannesburg commitments with monitoring, assessment and enforcement methods that are transparent and binding. Transparency and commitments are two sides of the same coin. Thirdly, it means we must launch an international debate on reforming institutions. We have new goals and new timetables governed by old institutions. If we want to regulate globalisation, it is essential to reform some of the existing institutions – such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the United Nations – giving them the social and environmental ambition that they do not have at the moment, and also to create new institutions, such as a World Environment Organisation and an International Court for Environmental Crimes. - Report Stockton (A5-0229/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE