GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, as everything has been said, but not by me – as they say – I will make two or three points simply to underline what has been discussed by the previous speakers. I belong to the minority who, at first reading, were not satisfied with Article 6 of the framework directive. The compromise that has now been presented meets with my approval. I think a balance has been achieved between the national regulators' shadowing of the market and the Commission's right of veto, in order to stimulate the progress of the internal market, of which we are all in favour, even my group. This represents, in our view, very much another fragmentation of the market. I want to say something general about the modus operandi itself. Yes, we are dealing with a very fast-moving market and rapidly evolving technology, and we have tried to take that into account by acting relatively speedily. I want, though, just to say another word of admonition. Parliament – by which I mean, we – should not always deny ourselves our rights in the legislative process. We realise that from time to time, when the worst comes to the worst, but I think it must remain an exception. I would like to highlight another point. Mrs Hieronymi made it very clear – and, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I can only underline what she said – that a unitary standard for digital television, and its interoperability, are issues not only for industry policy, but also for consumers. I have promised consumers and the general public in my constituency that we would ensure that there was a standard that would enable them to receive on one TV set everything that they wanted to see and that they would not have to install several sets. I believe we have to go a bit further down that road. I would like to emphasise the very demand that Mrs Hieronymi made when she spoke just now. Perhaps the Commission and the Council can leap a bit further over the shadow thrown by digital television and reach a compromise. Then I, too, would find it easier to vote in favour of the package as a whole. I will end my speech there and point out that I have stuck to the speaking time allotted to me.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as permanent rapporteur for agencies in the Committee on Budgets, I have been following these reports, which regulate the operation of the London-based medical products agency, that is the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. I am very grateful to the rapporteur and to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for having taken our suggestions on board in their reports. There is, however, one thing I would to make very clear to this House, and this also applies of course to the Commission and the Member States. If we are to give an agency new remits, then we also need to consider where the money for carrying out those tasks is to come from. We cannot just keep increasing the size of an agency. We have a General Budget that only provides us with a certain amount, and Parliament cannot top it up – we can only restructure it. So if we wish to allocate financial means to an agency in future, we have to take those means away from another agency. I know that I am not making myself popular by making these statements, but I am not here to be popular. We need to bear in mind in future that an agency can only carry out the tasks assigned to it with the money at its disposal, and that it cannot act as it likes beyond that. That is not possible, because we do not have the money for that.

Political group: PSE
One of the many disadvantages of economies of scale is the growing scope for profiteers often to go about their business unhindered for a long time. In large, poorly organised organisations, there is a great deal of scope for people who, behind a wall of bureaucracy, want to line their own pockets. The European Union is one such large-scale, poorly organised organisation, which offers unexpected opportunities to officials, politicians and companies who earn a living from European contracts. In 1998 and 1999, Mr Paul van Buitenen, who was at the time a Commission official, demonstrated potential consequences, with the resignation of the entire European Commission as the eventual result. At the moment, Mrs Marta Andreasen, the new whistle-blower, is demonstrating that the financial administration is inadequate when it comes to preventing fraud of any kind. Unfortunately, her efforts to make improvements are not appreciated by everyone, and she has been muscled out of her job. It appears that there are people who do not stand to gain from improvement. The Committee on Budgetary Control has established that in 2001, fraud was perpetrated to the tune of EUR 1.25 billion. The rapporteur is right to refer to the possibility that has been in place for ten years to exclude from contracts companies that commit fraud, to the fraud-sensitivity of funds and to the desirability of a European public prosecutor. Yet, all the proposed measures combined probably have less impact than decentralisation and scaling down.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as you are aware, on 14 June the Convention will conclude its work, on 20 June there will be a Summit in Thessaloniki and we, most appropriately, will be holding a mini part-session in the week between the two events, on 18 and 19 June to be precise. My group therefore felt it was important that we should hold a preliminary debate on the outcome of the Convention, maybe inviting the Chairman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, to be present. I would stress what Mr Barón Crespo said, namely that this does not mean there would be any less need for a more in-depth analysis after the Thessaloniki Summit, carried out according to whatever procedure Parliament decides to follow. Given the public nature of the Convention’s work, I believe it would be politically appropriate to discuss it in this House, even if we are not the first to do so, publicly and transparently at least, and, if possible, in the presence of the Chairman, but even without the Chairman if he is not available.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The draft resolution presented by Mr Lannoye is a very complete response to the scandal of the drinking water shortages experienced by hundreds of millions of people in developing countries. It questions the responsibility of large international organisations that dismantled public services, leading to this situation. It has, however, found a majority in this House by getting rid of some of the content of the resolution through amendments that refuse to point the finger and, therefore, beyond good feeling, has used its influence to push for a real improvement in the standard of living of those affected. The adoption of Amendment No 15 which ‘stresses that the key issue is not whether water provision is organised by a public or private entity but rather the specific obligations provided by the policy framework; considers that it is up to the public authorities in developing countries to define the legal framework for regulating the work of private operators’, changes the essence of the report. It is the commercialisation of this common good that is at the root of these inequalities of access, of the shortage and excessive cost in developed countries as in developing countries. The adoption of this meant that I was obliged to abstain in the final vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to express my thanks to the Commission for responding so quickly to our own quick work. The principal task, however, still lies ahead of us, namely that of persuading the Council. The chief problem area can be found in the Budget. With Parliament’s demands for EUR 980 million, we are now facing a Council proposal of EUR 350 million, and another EUR 490 million in the seven-year programme. This is the area of the great debate which we face and, against the combined forces of the Commission and Parliament, it is now up to the Council to change. (Parliament adopted the amended common position) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0023/1999), on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Decision amending the basic Decision relating to the Socrates programme to include Turkey among the beneficiary countries [8076/1/1999 – C5-0024/1999 – 1996/0130(COD)] and the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Decision amending the basic Decision relating to the Youth for Europe III programme to include Turkey among the beneficiary countries [8077/1/1999 – C5-0025/1999 – 1996/0131(COD)] (rapporteur: Mr Gargani) (Parliament adopted the two common positions) *** Report (A5-0024/1999) by Mr Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory [COM(1999)0111 – C5-0019/1999 – 1996/0066(CNS)] (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Common resolution(1) on the restructuring of firms

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Cunha, in his absence and wish him well in his new job. Third-party fishing agreements have come under a lot of scrutiny recently, with headlines such as 'EU fishing fleets devastate Third World' and 'West African nations to ban EU fishing fleets'. A recent WWF report highlighting the problems in Angola makes for interesting reading. On the one hand, the EU is providing emergency aid to Angola but, on the other, has signed a fishing agreement which would take from Angolan waters vital fish stocks which go to some of the poorest people in the world. According to UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, which focused on Mauritania, Argentina and Senegal, all countries have noticed a depletion in their stocks after signing third-party fishing agreements. In Mauritania, catches of octopus have halved in the past four years and in Senegal two thirds of the country's export earnings are reliant on fish exported to Europe. Over half the fish we consume in the EU now comes from outside the EU and half of this is on the basis of third-party fishing agreements. Of primary concern is the subsequent depletion of fish stocks, the dependence of local communities in developing countries on these stocks for their own food, the poor enforcement rules and catch limits and the apparent contradictions that seem to exist between the EU fisheries policy and EU development policy. All these issues concern many MEPs. The need for environmental impact to be taken into consideration with third-party fishing agreements is paramount. I like the fact that the rapporteur has underlined the importance of sustainable fisheries and is highlighting this fact, which should apply to all vessels within the waters affected. However, I regret that, for example, in Angola where 35% of the EUR 15.5 million paid is supposed to go towards small-scale fisheries projects, it is actually unclear if this money will go to this aim or not. These concerns are very real and that is why I support the 's Amendment No 2. This amendment would make new fishing agreements dependent upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence that monies paid under the previous agreements for targeted measures have been spent as intended. We should not be seen to be renewing agreements where the third party has not fulfilled their side of the bargain. However, fishing agreements should not be signed if they would be detrimental to the long-term socio-economic interests of the country concerned. Third-party fishing agreements play an important role in providing the EU with fish. However, what are we going to do when their fish stocks run out? We should not be destroying the viability of countries and crucial stocks for the future for short-term gain. Third-party fishing agreements must take into account the future viability of stocks.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, from the point of view of foreign policy, the Spanish Presidency comes at a time when there is war between two atomic powers to be prevented, peace to be established in the Middle East, and the Barcelona process to be brought to a successful conclusion, because, if we are not successful in these areas, they may have a merciless effect on our immediate interests. I believe, Mr President, that we can make progress on the focal points that you have mapped out. Internationally, and nationally too, all this is tied in with the fight against terrorism, and I would like to say, in response to a speech by one of the previous speakers, that there can be no political justification for terror, which must be rejected both within the European Union and outside it. Mr President-in-Office, I have observed over the last few months how you, astutely preparing for your presidency, have not, on foreign policy issues, fallen victim to the peril of bilateralism, which has been seen to some degree in Berlin, London and Paris. I believe this results from the recognition that we can achieve the objectives of combating international and national terrorism and securing peace only by a joint effort and not on the basis of everyone for himself, and that it is for this reason that we must bring about a common foreign and security policy. I am thankful that you evidently are able to go down this road. There are yet two more reasons why your presidency comes at a decisive moment. You will, when the Convention begins, be able to emphasise certain features of what the internal configuration of the European Union will be like in the future. We therefore ask you for the support that will give the Convention the working facilities it needs in order to be able to meet these requirements. Your presidency will, though, also see the preparatory decisions on enlargement of the European Union taken, that is to say, on the outward configuration of the European Union in the future. We hope for very close cooperation with you on these issues over the next six months. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for three weeks, this House has been haunted by the anonymous allegation that Members have been forging signatures in the attendance lists. Since yesterday evening, the ‘rumour mill’ in this House has been saying that the administration has completed its investigations with the assistance of graphologists and concluded that there are no forgeries. I think that it is unacceptable that today, Wednesday, these investigations having been concluded, this information is not being publicly announced here in the plenary session and to the press. (Applause) What I expect of the President of this House – not you yourself, but rather the President in his capacity as such – is that the results of these investigations should be publicly made known before today is out. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will continue what is very much a Finnish debate, although I am largely of the same opinion as Mr Brie, who has just spoken, although he is not my fellow countryman. The fact that relations between the EU and Russia are now more unpredictable than for a time is the fault of both sides. It would be worrying if Russia were to become our own Middle East, and, because of European dependence on energy, we were prepared to allow human rights violations such as those played out in the tragedy that is Chechnya to continue from one year to the next, and accept the increased risks attached to the transportation of oil, the collapse of nuclear safety, and the alarming restrictions on civil liberties. The crucial issue here is freedom of speech, and one only has to go by Russia’s track record on other political rights to reach a reliable conclusion on that. An independent media and judiciary are vital to allow a robust civil society to develop in Russia, which has never yet been a true nation-state. The EU does not seem to have any coherent or consistent policy with regard to Russia; neither are issues given any sort of priority. That is also shown by the way the Union’s Northern Dimension has been neglected, although it embraces regional cooperation, especially in Baltic and Arctic areas, which is vitally important for the stability of the EU’s neighbouring regions and the common stability that results from that, and although its importance will only increase as the Union is now expanding to include the Baltic countries. The Northern Dimension is certainly different from Kaliningrad, which is symbolised, for example, by the Sami people who live in the Arctic region that stretches from Norway to Russia and who at the same time are the EU’s only indigenous people. Ending on a positive note, let it be said that our land border with Russia has been remarkably peaceful and free of problems, and the EU does not really deserve the credit for that.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for attending this debate. Behind each of the speeches there is what I believe to be a fundamental concept. This fundamental concept is the single European transport area, a European area of transport which is not only compatible with European asymmetry but which must actually incorporate it. Europe is not equal – as Mr Sudre has just said – Europe has certain areas of infrastructure, certain peripheral regions, certain areas of cohesion, certain nuclei – more now, with enlargement – which require extremely considerable promotion, but this is not incompatible with the single European transport area. A few months ago, Commissioner, this House and the Council approved the sixth framework research programme. This programme established the single European area of research. The Commissioner said to European researchers: we have passed the stage of you meeting to tell each other what you are doing and even to cooperate on friendly terms. It is necessary to create a single European area of research so that all research capacity and effort is focussed on the same projects, has the same objectives and the same territory so that we are not therefore inventing the wheel fifteen times. Therefore, the European research area is the key to understanding all the speeches which this afternoon may have sounded like a rainbow of views which would be difficult to unite. But I can assure you that the vote tomorrow will not produce a blurred picture, as may be assumed on the basis of tonight’s debate, but a clearly defined one. You are fortunate, Commissioner, since this Parliament is saying: go ahead, you have the support of Parliament to formulate into directives the issues you have presented to us in the report on the White Paper, and you have certain additional contributions from the European Parliament which may be useful. Many doors are therefore being opened, and the Council cannot turn a deaf ear to the fundamental demands and the appeal represented by the Transport White Paper that the time has come to take decisions, to create a genuinely European policy, because, in view of this European policy, the effect will be a synergy which will respond to the reticence of those who say that the European Safety Agency will cost money, that the European Transport Fund will not be well used, of those who do not believe that intermodality in one port will benefit the whole of Europe, that investments and corridors, in any area, will benefit around 400 million Europeans once the Union has been enlarged. Therefore, Commissioner, although there is apparently a rainbow of diversity in this House, I can guarantee that we are very close together. I will end by thanking all the Members who have participated in this report, because they have offered me many ideas and entirely constructive cooperation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it seems clear that we face in all these issues two critical imperatives: on the one side, it is vitally important that democratic deliberation in an assembly of this kind goes forward without unfair impediment or abuse of legal processes to deter Members from exercising their democratic mandate properly. That is very important. On the other side, always when issues of immunity arise, the contemporary unpopularity of politicians becomes an issue and people say 'politicians hide behind membership of legislative houses in order to get away with things that ordinary people are punished for doing'. It is equally important and vital to avoid giving that impression. That is why it is so important in these cases that the House becomes seized as quickly as possible of the question whether what is before us is an abuse of the legal process in terrorem democratiae or whether on the other hand this is a case where something is being done which ought to be tried in the ordinary courts in the case of any ordinary citizen, for we are all ordinary citizens as well as legislators. It is very regrettable that this issue has become a matter of long drawn-out deliberation in the executive branch of a Member State because that is exactly the wrong place for these vital issues to be debated. We should get them into Parliament as quickly as possible. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal to create a framework enabling the proportion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the European Union to be considerably increased in the medium term, can only be welcomed. The lengths the rapporteur, Mrs Rothe, has gone to to make Parliament’s stance on this clear, therefore deserve our full recognition. After all, on the one hand, this directive is an important element in the series of measures taken to enable us to honour the commitment the EU entered into in Kyoto regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases and, on the other, it is a praiseworthy attempt to reduce the European Union’s dependence on the oil-producing countries. Under the present circumstances, it must be recognised that the renewable energy sources require some form of financial support, in order to create a level playing field. As I see it though, these subsidies should be no more than reasonable and only payable for a limited period. Needless to say, the controversial issue in this report is that to do with the stipulation of binding target figures. In fact the crux of the report is whether it makes any sense or not to have these binding target figures. I would advocate a realistic approach, an approach based on the knowledge that electricity production from renewable energy sources can never form a substantial element of total energy production. Stipulating realistic target figures can only increase public confidence in the energy policy to be pursued. If the target figures cannot be made binding then we will be creating false expectations, i.e. by pretending to strive for the improvement of the environment without being able to make it a reality. This would be to the detriment both of the environment and of the policy’s credibility in the eyes of the citizens. Finally, Mr President, I would like to point out, on the subject of municipal waste processing, that if a switch is made to separated municipal waste collection, a switch can also be made to separated municipal waste processing, and the latter must certainly be regarded as a renewable energy source.

Political group: ELDR