GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too first want to thank Mr Beysen for his excellent report. He has raised some important points, and our group supports his approach. The Commission is proposing that financial support for the trans-European networks must be stepped up. This is to be supported in order to foster the internal market in electricity and gas. As has been said here, it is also important to connect the new Member States to the internal market in energy. This point of view is also contained in the report adopted by Parliament on cross-border exchanges in electricity. It has also already been said here that the main responsibility for constructing and maintaining adequate energy networks lies with EU industry and business. In this sense the energy networks differ from the trans-European networks, which receive large amounts of public money. Network operators, however, have no interest in removing bottlenecks in the supply to their neighbours. For that reason, state intervention and EU aid to promote competition is well justified. Naturally we also have to see that aid does not distort competition and that it is used for the right purpose. Concentrating EU aid on priority projects will encourage the removal of bottlenecks and boost competition, giving consumers greater choice. In this way Europe’s own energy resources will be put to more effective use and the European economy will be given a boost. In developing the trans-European energy networks, account must also be taken of social and economic rapprochement. We also have to ensure networks are developed in island, peripheral and remote regions. If necessary we must provide support for connecting the networks in these regions to other networks. Following on from Union decisions, we also have to encourage the diversification of forms of energy and increase the use of renewable energy sources. We have to ensure that decentralised renewable energy can access the network at a reasonable cost. The recent massive storm damage was a reminder that we must insist on companies and industry being sufficiently prepared to repair damage speedily and restore networks in all regions of the Union.

Political group: ELDR
I am here on behalf of Mr Papayannakis. I would like to thank the Council of Ministers for its answer, which I think was good in many ways. I have a supplementary question which concerns the demands that are now being made by the Albanian minority in Macedonia for increased influence and some form of self-rule or federation within Macedonia. Does the Council of Ministers have any viewpoint on the demands being put forward by the Albanian minority in Macedonia?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, in view of what one Member said, I believe that this is a very appropriate time to discuss economic and social cohesion. Let us hope that this notion transcends European borders and is applied to other regions. This would probably be a solution to many conflicts. While it is true that this is a good time for the debate, I must also recognise that, at least in my opinion, the responses from the Council and the Commission are unsatisfactory. Firstly, I find it difficult to believe that we can talk about social and economic cohesion without making the least reference to the single market and all the policies of the European Union. We are currently negotiating the Sixth Framework Programme, a programme which from the outset does not fulfil the cohesive conditions required of it by the Treaties. Economic and social cohesion demands that we take it into account in all our policies. Mr President, Mr Barnier asked this Parliament certain questions in this report. When we asked the Council these same questions, it indicated that this was not the appropriate time to answer them, but Parliament has the right to ask the Commission and the Council these questions so that we might know their opinion, before producing our report. I profoundly and fundamentally disagree with the Council’s attitude, and to a lesser extent with that of the Commissioner, because I believe that certain fundamental issues must be clarified immediately. We are talking about how the 2006 project is going to affect various regions in the future. If we do not do so we will constantly be talking in theory about this issue and we will never bring about the reform necessary for economic and social cohesion in Europe, because we will be looking askance at one another: some of us talking about how we have to remove the Cohesion Fund, others saying that certain regions have to leave it. This confusion will prevent us from getting down to a thorough analysis of the issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as we look at the world's environmental problems, some of them, such as the loss of habitats and biodiversity, seem to leave us powerless of achieving any solution. But it is not all gloom and doom, and within Europe, we are capable of banning the use of chemicals which are toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative and using science to develop safer alternatives, and this directive is good news for that reason. The Water Framework Directive was my first experience of the dynamics of the conciliation process between Parliament and the Council with the assistance of the Commission, and I think that Parliament can claim credit for introducing the category of priority hazardous substances which this Directive now puts into practice, but it is indeed a first step on a long road. I know the Commissioner has herself many times referred to the sheer number of chemicals still being developed and being put on the market, and suspicion is attached to many substances, not identified as yet, and the process of identification and elimination needs to progress rapidly. Can I refer in concluding to the institutional relationship? The Presidency has indicated to group spokesmen that it would like to fast-track this process and see a rapid resolution, and I think that is welcomed by all parties. We would obviously like to see action sooner rather than later, but hastily arranged meetings with no time for proper discussion and coordination between parties are not the best way of making laws or securing agreement so I hope we succeed and are able to achieve a vote today which the Council can endorse within a matter of weeks rather than years; but if we do, I suspect that it will be more a matter of luck than design, and I hope we can bear this in mind if we are able to work together with the other institutions of the European Union and achieve progress more effectively and rapidly in future years.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to repudiate what Mr Poettering said about Mr Kuhne. Mr Poettering, this draft report by Mr Kuhne was adopted by the Committee on Budgetary Control by a large majority. It is in the nature of budgetary control that there always has to be somebody who feels their toes have been trodden on. In this case, Mr Poettering, you are the one. Alternatively, it might be French MEPs, or sometimes it might be colleagues from another area. Mr Poettering, people are labouring under a misapprehension as far as budgetary control is concerned, not just in the Commission but also in this House. (Heckling from Mr Poettering) Please do not interrupt me, Mr Poettering, it cannot be translated. You are not speaking into the microphone. That is one of the problems we are facing, and I would add that Mr Dell'Alba’s attack on Mrs Stauner should be repudiated in just the same way. Some serious work has been done here and it is only natural that it should contain personal touches and reflect the writer’s own cultural background to some extent, but I repudiate determinedly, and with a sense of consternation, the fact that the integrity of rapporteurs is under attack here. It is hardly surprising that two Members of the Conference of Presidents should have a problem with the control and authority exercised by the Committee on Budgetary Control. I would like to endorse Mr Staes’ comment that the stipulations contained in this framework agreement on the transfer of documents are an affront, and no Parliamentarian worth his salt can do other than regard them as such and repudiate them accordingly. (Applause) I have a problem with your closing comments, Mrs Schreyer, in which you again presented the new Commission’s entire reform project, and would remind you of what President Prodi said in this House about Parliament’s access to documents, namely transparency and open access. What we have today are secret negotiations and countless dossiers, and I ask myself how, at the end of the day, we are supposed to come into our own as representatives of the European tax-payers? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report quite rightly highlights the fact that the results of the so-called EU-ACP partnership are greatly at odds with its claim to promote and speed up economic development. Instead of noting an increase in their exports to the European Union, the ACP countries have seen them fall almost by half since the signing of the agreement. Instead of improving, trade terms between the European Union and the ACP countries have deteriorated. Instead of developing, these countries have become poorer. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the objectives stated in the Lomé Convention and the Cotonou Agreement and so on are far removed from reality. They masquerade as a system of preferences, but these agreements encourage the pillaging of poor countries by large investors of rich European countries. In the colonial past, pillaging was carried out in an open and shameless fashion. Today, as ex-colonies have become independent, we speak not of diktats but of negotiations, not of exploitation, but of partnership, but the system is still the same. Trade relations between imperialist countries and poor countries are designed in such a way that the former continue to become wealthier at the expense of the latter. We share the rapporteur’s opposition to the Commission proposal seeking to put in place free trade zones. This sort of freedom would equate to getting the fox to mind the geese! It would, however, be futile to attempt to improve a system that is fundamentally flawed. The only salvation for poor countries is to be found in a radical transformation of the global economic system.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner. I concur with Mrs Maij-Weggen’s question. I have taken part in several election observation exercises and, according to the principle of “do good and be seen to do good”, we, and I do not mean just I, have often remarked that visibility was often lacking. Now I am all in favour of our continuing to work together with the OSCE and the Council of Europe. However, it is a poor show that we, the European Union bear all the costs, as is often the case, and yet nobody even notices that the European Parliament is present to observe the elections. I think that we should take reasonable account of visibility in this context. Secondly, Commissioner, I should like to ask you when you intend to have at least the basic structure of your rapid reaction facility up and running, because it is also important for Parliament’s work? What sort of timetable should we be working towards? Thirdly, Commissioner, not all, but many crises to which we must react can be prevented. Are you satisfied with the state and development of crisis prevention or do you want to couple crisis prevention to the rapid reaction facility?

Political group: PSE
Thank you for that answer to my question. I am delighted by what you said. My question arose from a visit I made to Belgrade about three weeks ago and from renewed contacts I had last week with the democratic movement, all the opposition political parties, private and humanitarian organisations, etc., which had issued a message for help in combating the way in which Milosevic is now demonising other countries. Other countries, including the EU, are being regarded as enemies which have destroyed their lives and institutions and which are now even subjecting them to sanctions. It is extremely important to destroy this picture, which is false. So I am very pleased that Serbia’s democratic opposition and other democratic forces are now getting the clear message that the European Union is ready to do its utmost for the civilian population in its present difficult situation.

Political group: PSE
As the rapporteur states, the directive on the prospectus is a central plank in the Financial Services Action Plan, an integral part of the Lisbon Strategy, which aims to integrate financial markets by 2005. One can therefore understand why the rapporteur believes that it is ‘vital to reach consensus and ensure a rapid adoption of the directive’, since ‘the creation of a legal framework which enhances the conditions for raising of capital via Europe's financial markets’ depends on it. In other words, as well as ensuring the refinancing of (large) companies, the directive is intended to encourage greater liberalisation of investment and capital. From this perspective, the amendments tabled by the rapporteur to the Council common position aim to make regulations more flexible, to speed up the procedure for approving the prospectus and reduce the scope for independent decision-making by Member States and national legislations. Specifically, States’ power to define who may be considered a qualified investor and to shorten approval periods has been curtailed by the introduction of the concept of deemed approval. The directive also finds the provision for the competent authority to carry out on-site inspections to monitor compliance with the directive to be disproportionate. It even wants to raise the investor threshold below which there will be no obligation to publish a prospectus. In short, it wants to liberalise. That is why we voted against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to speak this evening on a theme that is close to my heart: that of European citizenship. As stated in the Treaty, European citizenship supplements national citizenship, but is not a substitute for it. European citizenship should also be an added extra for everyone living in the European Union. In December 2000, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights finally placed the citizen at the heart of European integration, eight years after the Treaty of Maastricht. It was high time indeed because, at European level as well as at national and local level, it is unthinkable to conduct politics in any way other than by placing citizens at the heart of all considerations, all social measures and all social projects. Despite being in a good position to know that, in practice, things work slightly differently, this must not prevent us from fighting to change things, quite the opposite. The rapporteur listed the areas that are meant to feature in European citizenship. There is therefore no need for me to repeat them. I am, however, deeply mindful of a whole series of social rights which were quoted by other speakers. The report gives an assessment of how these rights are being implemented. This assessment is not overly enthusiastic because, although it reports on progress made, it also highlights the fact that a great deal is still to be done in various areas. We mentioned voting at the European elections, in which less than 50% of voters took part. We must, therefore, put in place measures that will encourage citizens to take part in these elections and, above all, we must give renewed consideration to the link between the elected representatives and the electorate. We must, once again, inspire citizens with the desire to vote and the desire to become involved in community life. The citizen must be an actor and not just an observer. The recent elections in the various EU Member States also reinforce this belief. What can we also say about mobility for education purposes? I have been telling the authorities for years about the lack of recognition of qualifications. European citizens are calling for swift action to be taken in this area. What can we say about the mobility of researchers? I have been appointed rapporteur on the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development and I know that this is a real obstacle course. I would like to end, Mr President, by thanking the rapporteur for his thoughts and with the hope that, if we all pull together, we will be able to take steps to strengthen our approach and to go further in placing the citizen at the heart of our European project.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In the Western Balkans, on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, there are still a great many unresolved problems in relations between the peoples living there. External interference in wars has contributed to this. Coercion by military means without power of persuasion does not provide the key to a democratic future. Foreign troops are still stationed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. An administrative status for the Republic of Serbia in northern Bosnia, for the areas inhabited by Croats on the south-western fringes of Bosnia, for Kosovo and for Albanian-speaking north-western Macedonia is still being put off until some future time. Lasting solutions that have genuine support among the inhabitants must be found, and quickly. The admission of areas of the Balkans to the EU while their administrative future is still contentious could potentially suck the whole of the EU into civil wars and their suppression. Although I do not subscribe to the approach of the rapporteur, Mr Lagendijk, on the military points, I believe that the strengths of his report lie in its opposition to the undermining of the International Criminal Court by the USA, its demands for equal rights for the Roma and its criticism of the humiliating visa regime. I also support his call for a speedy settlement of the permanent status of Kosovo on the basis of far-reaching autonomy or independence. Unlike those in my group who are abstaining on account of Kosovo, I support this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I gladly concur with the previous speakers, Mr Patten and Mr Corrie. We all witnessed the fight against hunger ten years ago. We subsequently visited many projects and saw many things, such as very expert local farmers who were involved in reconstruction projects both in Eritrea and Ethiopia. I find Ethiopia’s criticism hard to take: Europe undertakes too little, you need to send food. Meanwhile the logistical capacity, such as lorries, roads and money, is used to wage a regional war. The least both parties could do is to impose an absolute freeze on military activity. If we talk about distributing food fast to the right places, then these lorries are needed, and these lorries were the force behind the movement which now leads Ethiopia and the movement which leads Eritrea. Both have a great deal of logistical experience, expertise and know-how. If they really channel their energies – and want to channel their energies – into what is available at this stage, if they want to make their ports and roads available, their capacity would be enormous. According to them, we are entirely to blame. But there is huge responsibility on the part of Ethiopia and Eritrea, and they should not try to throw it back at us using a cheap marketing trick. They are jointly responsible. Put a freeze on the military trade, try to reach a peace agreement and meanwhile, deploy your military lorry capacity and manpower where they are needed. My second point concerns food. There is enormous pressure to send food fast, and I mean fast. Experience has taught us that things can go very far wrong depending on how food is distributed, and it could well end up sitting in the warehouses. I would suggest looking at all the options – this will certainly be done by the monitoring clubs of the EU now in Ethiopia. Is there anything for sale locally in the region? We were right to turn our food aid policy round. We should not send our surpluses there but examine whether anything can be bought locally. After all, anything we can get and arrange there will help their economy and will prevent the local situation from being distorted. Because, ultimately, that is what causes the structural hardship which accompanies these wars. I hope that the early warning facility, which involved a great many experts, will also be built into our ability to receive signals at an earlier stage. It is not easy. Everyone knows that, but it could be an enormous bonus in removing the image of inadequacy when we handle such situations. Ethiopia and Eritrea bear the ultimate responsibility. I give my full backing to any action undertaken by the Commission on this score. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this debate has focused largely on the situation in the Middle East. I am not sure that the largely one-sided tone of this Chamber is at all helpful. I endorse Mr Brok's call for a more balanced approach but as requested I also want to take the opportunity briefly to touch on another area of crisis which is of increasing concern at the moment and where the European Union has the capacity to exert some influence. I am referring to Zimbabwe. Even if electoral observers are allowed in, we must maintain the pressure on Mr Mugabe to deliver free and fair elections. We do not want to be in a position of merely recording that the election was fixed and standing back and wringing our hands afterwards. We want the presence of observers to deter violence and electoral fraud so that the Zimbabwean people can make a genuinely free choice. Many of us continue to be alarmed by reports from inside Zimbabwe about the situation on the ground. I am referring to the fact that five MDC supporters have been killed in the past week, that MDC demonstrations and rallies have been disrupted by the police, that the independent press is restricted, the Independent correspondent, Basildon Peta, was earlier today arrested under the Public Order and Security Act and the Australian journalist Sally Sara has been refused admission. Taken together one might think that these matters already constitute a breach of EU conditions. I have some questions for Mr Solana. What representations are being made to the Government of South Africa to apply greater regional pressure on the Mugabe government? Are the measures for the implementation of smart sanctions now in place? What level of deterioration in the situation will trigger these sanctions? Is the European Union's response being fully coordinated with that of the United States?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our group recognises the efforts made by Mr Brok in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, which has been a positive effort to reconcile the various contributions. However, we do not agree with the fundamental aspects of his report and, for this reason, we cannot support it with our vote. As an example, I will now briefly mention three of these aspects. Firstly, 11 September was an opportune moment for the European Union to demonstrate that it could play a positive, peaceful and reflective role with the United States, in order to find, in the International Criminal Tribunal and through International Law, a solution to the conflict. What appeared to be taking place in this direction has now been frustrated by the emergence of the Schröder – Blair – Chirac triumvirate which has missed this opportunity. Secondly, the report gives great importance to NATO, when we think that NATO works against the interests of the European Union. Lastly, it is very important that the European Union should play a role in the Middle East and in the Western Sahara, and we are also wasting this opportunity. Thank you very much.

Political group: GUE-NGL