GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The most vital requirement of energy and environmental policy as we approach the millennium is to meet our Kyoto commitments, and here of course a CO2 tax would have a major role to play. Unfortunately, that has not yet been agreed, but we would ask the Commission to proceed in this direction. We are not in fact meeting our energy commitments under Kyoto at all. Energy conservation, rational planning and renewable energies are agreed to be the most important way forward other than the CO2 tax, about which, as I have said, no agreement has yet been reached. They are indeed the right way to sustainability, but we are not pursuing them strongly enough. The most recent statistics on energy intensity show that for 1996 we are at level zero. We are in fact going backwards after seven years of trying to meet climate change commitments: this is not only unacceptable, it is completely scandalous. I would refer you to those statistics – I am sure you know what they are, and we have to do better. Our citizens expect and, indeed, demand that we do better. The Commission and Parliament have indeed together sought to keep the already small budget for SAVE and ALTENER on target and for that I thank you and I hope we can continue to make progress. What does not have a place in energy and the environment is nuclear power because it is not sustainable. We do not have the ability to deal with nuclear waste although various fancy solutions have been proposed, including sending it to the moon, and we would be indeed on another planet if we agreed with Mr Chichester that nuclear power was a solution. It is not, and I think that he was very ill-advised to add this discordant note to an otherwise more or less acceptable report. I also feel that the Commission was most wise to avoid reference to nuclear power in its own proposals and I would advise you to keep to this approach because it is a most divisive thing to propose, and we will certainly not agree to it. The recent nuclear accident in Japan has exposed once again the criminal negligence of the nuclear industry, and the recent falsifications of safety checks by BNFL at Sellafield are further evidence that we need to have great anxiety about the nuclear industry and how it operates. What do we want, and what is the way forward? We want the implementation of commitments in the White Paper on renewable energies, for example. We want these commitments fleshed out by a Commission action plan on renewable energies. Reference has been made to the internal market, and this is the most important environment in which we now operate: here the large subsidies for coal and nuclear energy must be ended and support for renewables as an important aspect of environmental policy must be made realistic. Legally-binding targets for renewable energies are an important part of this strategy, but we must also have very clearly the externalisation of internal costs in respect of traditional energy production. Finally, I think that if we have a level playing field and if we end the subsidies particularly for nuclear energy, we will see the other forms of energy coming forward.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the implementation of the internal market is truly one of the most important steps in achieving the Lisbon objectives. If the internal market is to work efficiently there needs to be genuine commitment at supranational level with regard to setting internal market objectives and at national level with regard to the implementation of decisions. Although the objectives are in place and the necessary laws have now been enacted at EU level, the extent to which they have been brought into effect in many Member States is truly shameful. The Commission should invest more time in monitoring the implementation of the decisions taken. I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Miller, that Member States in breach of their obligations should be condemned more frequently, expeditiously and severely than is now the case, by imposing fines, for example. Furthermore, the impact and effectiveness of EU legislation should be continually assessed, as unnecessary laws are something we do not need. A viable internal market is an excellent way of creating jobs and wealth. One of the most harmful barriers to the proper functioning of the internal market is restricted mobility of the workforce and inflexibility of the labour market. The decision by many Member States, including Finland, not to allow the free movement of the workforce from the new Member States is nothing less than blatant discrimination against the nationals of those countries. So far only Ireland and Great Britain have said they will open up their borders on 1 May to the workforce arriving from the Central European countries that are joining the Union. Other old Member States are using the opportunity to keep their borders closed, even though one of the pillars of the EU is the free movement of the workforce. The new Member States certainly could not have expected the decisions that were made owing to pressure by the trade union movement. The restrictions might even have been accepted if the new Member States had been aware of them at Copenhagen, when the membership agreements were just being signed. It is short-sighted and pointless on the part of the current Member States to fear change in this way and be unwilling to implement essential structural solutions, and it undermines the prospects of economic growth in both the current and the new Member States. The opening of the market for net-based industries has delivered significant benefits for consumers, businesses and society. Competition has increased, prices have fallen, and there is more innovation and choice. To boost international competitiveness, it is important to address all the problems that are troubling the internal market. Removing the cross-border barriers to trade in services in the service industry is the most crucial of these. I hope the directive on services makes swift progress.

Political group: PPE-DE
The result of the voting in this House makes the objective of the directive – which was recognised and supported by all the speakers and the Commission – unattainable. The rejection of Amendment No 3 means that, although the directive regulates maximum authorised lengths, it does not harmonise maximum authorised widths or heights for attachments such as skiboxes. Much more crucial, however, is the fact that the testing rules for cornering are not aligned with the current version of ECE Regulation 36.03 which has been used in practice since 1996. Instead the reference is Directive 97/27/EC which is based on an obsolete version of ECE Regulation 36.03 and is undergoing review within the Commission. This is tantamount to failing to adapt to technical and scientific progress, and it means that an old testing method which is not fit to be used in practice will have to be applied. This will make it impossible to authorise the rigid 15-metre buses! I voted in favour of the report in the hope that Directive 96/53/EC will be immediately brought into line with the amended Directive 97/27/EC (once it is updated). The statement made by the Commission representative following the debate, that he will be rejecting all the other amendments apart from one, left me rather shaken. For me it shows how superfluous a debate is if the Commission is not willing or able to reconsider its position or react to the debate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is common knowledge that the most recent ministerial conference, in Cancún, sadly ended in failure. It is good, therefore, that the European Commission now wants to take renewed action to get the current negotiations started again. The proposed development round must not fail; it must be brought to a successful conclusion. After all, a great deal is at stake. There is the potential risk of the World Trade Organization and the multilateral trading system becoming completely undermined. Bilateral and regional trade agreements are not a viable alternative in an increasingly globalised world, and in a system that has contributed to stable and sustained economic growth for almost 55 years now. Therefore, it is high time that the welcome discussions on the subject matter were complemented with improvements in WTO working methods. Negotiating and taking decisions by consensus in a forum with 148 members requires procedures that are up-to-date, simple and efficient, but at present that is precisely what the WTO’s procedures are not. It remains my deep-rooted conviction that the WTO is more necessary than ever, because, particularly as far as the European Union is concerned, further liberalisation of world trade and the removal of barriers to trade are the key to increased economic growth and employment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too would like to stress the importance of the Portuguese legislative initiative contained in Mrs Cerdeira Morterero’s report, which has been put before Parliament. It is important for a number of reasons: firstly, because we are making headway in the construction of the area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the Tampere programme, a programme which is difficult to put into practice because of the clash with the numerous State regulations and the nations’ reluctance. Secondly, it is important because this vote has filled a gap, a gap which means there is unacceptable prejudice against European citizens, who travel freely through Union territory but, when they become victims of a crime, come up against the barriers of different legal systems, difficult to penetrate from every viewpoint, which penalise them further while favouring the offenders. Finally, this vote is important because Parliament has the opportunity to make significant improvements to the legislative proposal, precisely those suggested in Mrs Cerdeira Morterero’s excellent report and supported by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. However, the most significant aspect, in my opinion, is that people are finally becoming aware, at Union and other levels, of the need to change opinion on State intervention with regard to crimes. Until now, on the basis of the just principle according to which citizens should be prevented from administering justice themselves, we have restricted ourselves to giving the State the monopoly on punishing the guilty, but we have forgotten that this is not the only task of the State: wherever in the world victims call for justice, we all know what they are asking for, even when the legal systems are completely different: they are calling for amends for a wrong which would otherwise be unacceptable, and the State, which has the task of ensuring citizens’ safety, when it is has not been able to protect them, must give all the help possible to victims, thus also showing that the Community takes the side of the party who has suffered the wrong and that the Community therefore condemns the offence and the offender. By adopting this report, the European Union is giving an initial response to a call for justice which has hitherto been disregarded.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, if we measure the achievements of Bonn against what we hoped for five years ago with regard to climate change, the results are meagre. On the other hand, if we measure what was achieved by that battle that you waged, Commissioner – in conjunction with Parliament’s delegation and that of the rest of the Commission – to conclude the agreement that was finally reached, we must thank you, Commissioner, and this delegation for having concluded an agreement that is fundamentally consistent, in that all the countries adopted this approach. The result of this was to isolate the United States who, unfortunately, is sticking to a position that is not in the interests of the world as a whole. I also feel that the exclusion of nuclear energy as an alternative to reducing greenhouse gases is a positive development. We cannot conceal our reticence over emissions trading and its monitoring or the use of sinks. The European Parliament has already stated, on several occasions, that sinks should only be used in a limited and carefully monitored way. These issues are of concern to us. We are also concerned about follow-up and monitoring mechanisms for compliance and the issue of possible sanctions in the event of non-compliance. Of greatest concern to us is the fact that the report by the European Environment Agency states that unless decisions are taken immediately, by 2010 emissions will increase by 6%. In our future work – and here I agree with my fellow speakers – it is, therefore, we industrialised countries that will have to lead the way in this reduction of emissions. It is crucial that we ratify the protocol and make greater reductions than those laid down in the agreement. We must introduce legally binding measures, take action on transport, which emits huge quantities of CO2 and clarify the amount of aid to be given to developing countries to ensure that they take similar action.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, may I first of all highlight Parliament’s effort in reaching a balanced solution to this complex web of interests that surrounds the COM in bananas. It is proof of this effort that we are, for the second time, discussing a report that puts forward excellent proposals to make support of banana production in the EU and the ACP countries compatible with the WTO rules. It is a pity that the Commission and the Council still insist on a solution that may seriously jeopardise this production, particularly after 2006. In this Parliament I represent Madeira, a region where bananas are the main agricultural product. The same is true for other regions of the European Union, such as the Canaries and the French Overseas Departments. All these territories constitute outermost regions. These regions are not only among the most disadvantaged but are also the only ones where bananas are produced in the European Union. This situation has to be taken into consideration in the definition of the new rules for the banana import regime. The European agricultural model, based on the multifunctionality of farming, must also serve to safeguard European Union banana production. Of the many different functions of farming in my region, the one that is becoming increasingly important is environmental protection. In other words, the end of bananas in Madeira would be at least as serious from the economic viewpoint (serious collapse of income for thousands of producers) as from the environmental viewpoint (destruction of the subtropical landscape and the rural world, increased erosion). Mr President, without this important environmental side, Madeira would be totally unable to sustain its ‘goose that lays the golden eggs’, which is tourism. Why, then, liberalise in 2006 when the quota system is perfectly compatible with WTO rules, as well as being the best guarantee that banana production in the Community and ACP countries can be maintained? In spite of everything, I still hope that the Commission will take due account of Parliament’s opinion as set down in the report now being debated, which I fully support and which tomorrow we shall surely adopt. I conclude by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Dary, on the excellent job he has done.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I voted for the second Savary report, which differs from the previous report in that it refers to a trans-European high-speed rail system. My point, this time, is that there is also room for improvement in this high-speed European transport system, in that it should be designed for use by ordinary citizens as well as businessmen who want to travel from Madrid to Copenhagen or somewhere even further away in as short a time as possible: businessmen can always go by plane. High-speed links must, first and foremost, be designed for tourism, leisure and the enjoyment of all European citizens, especially the elderly, who would be avid travellers if conditions were more luxurious and rail travel a more pleasurable experience.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too have a procedural suggestion: not to comment further on what Mr Poettering has said. That is no easy task and anyone who knows me knows that I shall have to exercise an inordinate amount of self-control! (Laughter) The election campaign is due to start in Germany in a couple of weeks' time. Mr Poettering has made it clear here that it has already begun. Which is why I shall say no more. But to have to bolster a motion in Parliament under the rules of procedure, which our group put on the agenda and the merits of which I have justified, by criticising your own government in order to be credible, takes the biscuit as far as party political statements goes! Which is why it is you who are lacking in credibility! We call for a vote on our motion.

Political group: PSE
I understand the technicalities and thank the Minister for that. But would the Council be in favour of repealing Article 296 of the EC Treaty, in other words, disallowing the exemption from the single market provisions and so introducing competition into defence procurement?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, last week, on Wednesday, to be precise, the new office of the Church of Scientology was inaugurated in Brussels with great pomp. I must express my surprise, Mr President, that such an event could take place right in the middle of the European quarter. I must also condemn the misrepresentation which may have occurred, for this office is called the ‘European Office for Public Affairs and Human Rights’. As Members of Parliament, we all received invitations to this inauguration ceremony, which we found in our personal letter boxes in Parliament with a label indicating the numbers and floors of our offices. The invitations were not stamped, which means they were distributed. I would like to know how it is possible for these invitations to have been distributed and who brought them to the European Parliament. I feel, Mr President, that we should be more careful where a sect such as this is concerned, which is to be tried in Belgium in a few days’ time for swindling, misrepresentations of all kinds, the unlawful practising of medicine and a great many other offences of which it is accused.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, please bring some order here, if you can. I believe that you can. The presence of a broken down nuclear submarine in the waters of the Bay of Algeciras has now unfortunately become a diplomatic conflict between a colonial and nuclear military power and a second category Member State, according to the latest classification in Nice, which does not demand its rights and gives in to infantile explanations. Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty is not being complied with, nor are important directives on radioactive protection, and you, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, know this and merely look the other way. It seems that you do not want internal conflicts, so why sign Treaties? Where, here and now, is the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the citizens of Gibraltar and Algeciras and the Andalusians of the area? Have you received the general information relating to the evacuation plan of the British authorities, which they are obliged to produce? The plan should include the evacuation and the possibility of an accident which contaminates another Member State, a possible cross-border contamination. You know this. What are you doing? Have you replied to the complaint of the Association of Municipalities of Campo de Gibraltar? When is the Committee on Petitions going to reply to a communication presented and signed by more than 35 associations – collectives, unions and municipalities – from the area? Let us forget about the yellow submarine and other tomfoolery, which has no place here. This is now real. Let us be serious. Ladies and gentlemen, your initial jeers, when I condemned this case on 5 July, and your laughter, have simply increased the desire of the Andalusian people to be respected and not to be humiliated with shameful explanations and to be obliged to endure an unnecessary situation of risk. Finally, do not allow the repair of this submarine in an inappropriate base. Ask and demand that it be removed when the technical and climatic conditions allow it. Commissioners, do not allow our gorgeous bay to become nothing but a workshop for nuclear junk.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, since 11 September, there have been many opportunities to think about and debate upon the consequences of the events of that fateful day and today is no exception. Without a doubt, the attacks in New York have made us realise that nobody can feel entirely safe from terrorism. When a man and a woman are murdered in Beasaín, as happened last week, for example, each and every one of us is affected, and it is not reasonable to ask the elected representatives of a democracy, Mr Watson, to have to debate under the threat of death. These events have also reminded us that we were a long way behind in meeting the commitments that the Heads of State and Government had given in Tampere in order to develop the third pillar of the European Union. The report that we approved by a large majority in committee contains contributions which, in my opinion, are very valid, to the otherwise excellent Commission proposal. For example, to define street violence as clearly being one form of terrorist expression, or to incorporate a reference to victims and their families and to offer political support and legal protection with the aim of identifying terrorism and bringing terrorists and their supporters to justice through the courts. This is precisely the purpose of the amendment we tabled in plenary and should be interpreted in this way. I hope that these and other contributions will be added to the text that the Council is debating, and, in particular, this latter amendment, which I hope the rapporteur will also vote for and will be taken into consideration when the European list of terrorist organisations that Parliament requested is drawn up. The Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs should fulfil their duty on the 6 and 7 December, and if they do not do so, the Presidency will have to honour its commitment to Parliament to take this issue at Laeken, and if any Member State there is tempted to block a proposal that has the widespread support of our citizens, it seems appropriate to me that closer cooperation should be implemented according to provisions of Article 40 of the Treaty. The Council’s requests do not date from 11 September. In September 2000, one year ago, the vast majority of MEPs signed a written declaration requesting the methods that today have been submitted for our consideration. These are the same methods that we are asking the Commission for in the own-initiative report on the role of the European Union in the fight against terrorism that we approved, also by a very large majority, on 5 September. Therefore, it needs to be made very clear that none of these measures makes the slightest reduction in the civil liberties of European citizens. The opposite is the case, we are giving the judicial system instruments to enable it to better protect everyone’s freedom because, faced with the free movement of crime, we must open the doors to the free movement of justice.

Political group: PPE-DE