GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this morning’s debate creates great confusion, because the positions we are hearing are very different. Some people tell us that Mrs Fourtou has achieved a wonderful compromise and others tell us that the big political groups have behaved like a kind of steamroller. We have heard speeches from Members of the different political groups, including the big ones, expressing very different opinions. Mrs Fourtou has tried to speed up the legislative process with what we could call ‘a proto-conciliation procedure’, but I believe we should assure Mr Imbeni that the procedure remains in place. The problem is that the current procedure for approving legislation in the European Union, before the adoption of the European Constitution, is a truly elaborate, complicated and difficult procedure. The recently signed Interinstitutional Agreement intends to eliminate these difficulties, but we know that that is going to be very difficult to achieve in practice. And this is because if there is no clear identification of a legislative body – which I believe must be as unified as possible – we are condemned to continuing to adopt this type of legislation in which there are great contradictions. Mr Berenguer Fuster said that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market reflected the views of the Members of Parliament. I disagree with that, because the majority of reports approved – including by a great majority in the Committee on Legal Affairs – are usually then rectified in plenary. In other words, as a result of its composition, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does not currently reflect the will of the whole House. Mrs Fourtou has tried to achieve an agreement which does not reflect the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. I do not know if she will achieve that agreement, because we do not yet know what the result of the vote will be. We are talking about a report with many amendments, with enormous amendments, and which, theoretically, should not affect substantive law. We are talking about a right relating to the application or implementation of the substantive content. Mr Berenguer may be right about the confusion between civil, administrative and criminal enforcement procedures, but it appears that the attention has been to eliminate criminal enforcement or, at least, the possibility of criminal proceedings, and this is due to the European Union's lack of competences in the criminal field. On the other hand, the scope of the directive has been extended – or it is intended to do so – so that it also includes the field of patents, which is a field in a degree of turmoil. My impression, Mr President, is that this first reading is going to produce a text typical of these Community institutions: a kind of camel – that is, a horse designed by a committee – and that it will probably only be the beginning, but I believe it is preferable for us to adopt this proposal for a directive as quickly as possible, at least so that we may have a departure point to work from, firstly in the second reading and then, no doubt, when further legislative proposals are needed.

Political group: PSE
The lack of momentum at the Barcelona Summit has been very frustrating. In my view, we are proving in the European Parliament today that we have indeed made progress, and I believe the Commissioner will be pleased about that. I wish to focus on the report by Mr Lipietz. I would also like to congratulate him on his report on financial conglomerates. This is something in which we, in the Netherlands, have a great deal of experience. But, I should like to make a few general observations in particular. We, in the Netherlands, have been struggling for some time with the issue of supervising dynamic developments within the market at both cross-border and cross-sector level. The problem is how to tailor this supervision to these dynamic developments. For the time being, the Financial Services Action Plan has settled for the approach of streamlining the rules of the different supervisory authorities in the Member States as much as possible, and working towards a level playing field within the markets on that basis. In this pragmatic approach, it is appropriate to leave it up to the Member States to decide on how they will organise their supervisory structure. I see this very much as an interim solution which also has some drawbacks. However, it is important in my view to focus on the future solution, future supervision, which will need to take place at European level. This structure will need to become more efficient, more transparent and less decentralised in order to be truly effective. It is impossible to regulate everything down to the last detail. In the Netherlands, we have a great deal of experience with an approach whereby the supervisory authority has a reasonable amount of discretionary power. However, this approach will cause problems if it has to be approved cross-border for other Member States, to cater for the large quantity of existing authorities. I therefore believe that we will have to hold a debate after all, about a strong, European supervisor, and we will also need to find out how we will distribute this task, and whether this will indeed be done at sector level. In my view, this comes too late, but we may ask whether we still nevertheless need to draw a functional distinction between supervision of conduct and prudential supervision. The role of the European Central Bank should also be considered in my view. I understand that in these circles, more thought is now also being given to a possible role in supervision. By way of conclusion, I should therefore like to propose that both the Commission and the European Parliament take initiatives for such a far-reaching discussion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, they say that every era and every generation creates an image that defines its relationship with nature. The concept of relationships with nature is changing radically in our own time. In future we will not be able to subordinate this relationship to profit, selfishness and exploitation. Whatever today’s policies may be, they must reflect this new philosophy of a relationship between mankind and society with the environment. With this in mind, the European Union has pioneered legislation in the field of environmental protection and has also been a key partner in international negotiations and agreements on the global protection of the planet. The transposition of European directives into national legislation has played and continues to play a crucial role in all our countries, particularly Portugal. The LIFE programme is just one financial instrument at the service of the European Union’s environmental policies and of those of its neighbouring countries in the Baltic, the Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe. This is not, however, the only financial instrument with repercussions for environmental policies. We know, for example, that regional and agricultural policy, which is to a large extent harmful, has an enormous impact on the environment and on Europe’s land and water. It is undeniably important for LIFE to be adopted. Having experienced many vicissitudes and a period of paralysis with regard to the projects financed by this programme, the Portuguese Presidency and the European Parliament finally formalised an agreement specifically on a budgetary framework of EUR 640 million for the period 2000-2004. LIFE III will therefore be operational before the summer. The agreement that was finally reached has many good points, part of the credit for which must go to the Portuguese Presidency – which once again demonstrated its constructive and efficient relationship with the European Parliament as well as its ability to mediate. Credit is also due to the European Parliament delegation and specifically to Mrs Lienemann. I also wish to welcome the agreement reached by the Portuguese Presidency and the European Parliament on the framework directive on water, an instrument that is crucial for the European Union’s environmental policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the draft directive on displaced persons represents a new step towards European asylum policy. But we are a long way off the ultimate goal, not least because the Council has hitherto appeared unable to reach decisions on Commission proposals. As far as I am aware, there is still no agreement on the directive on family reunification within the Council’s working party. The Council will perhaps be able to deal with this temporary protection directive more promptly, as it is not being ‘hindered’ by a codecision procedure in this case. It is, however, questionable how much further problems have to escalate before the Council can rise above the mutual differences and can adopt a truly European approach. Despite this, I should like to identify two positive aspects today. First of all, the drive with which the Commission acquits itself of its task as legislator in the European Union and the care it applies to keeping the balance between the national interests and the ultimate goal of Tampere are quite remarkable. Commissioner Vitorino deserves every support for his excellent helmsmanship in this matter. Secondly, the content of the directive itself is balanced and therefore by and large acceptable. First and foremost, it is stated that the rights and duties of displaced persons should as far as possible approximate to those of people with a different residence status. In addition, further to its debate, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has called for more light to be shed on the relationship between the displaced persons status and the regular asylum procedure. They should not be mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, the use of the temporary protection instrument is merely a contingency measure which should not undermine the individual right to asylum. Furthermore, I am delighted that it has been clearly laid down that all Member States have to contribute their proportionate share to the actual reception of displaced persons. I thank Mr Wiebenga for amending the directive to that effect. However, I also share Mrs Terrón’s and Mrs Buitenweg’s severe criticism of the compromise, which is very disappointing indeed and should not really call itself a compromise, as far as the definition of “the family” is concerned. We have not heard the last of this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, from the racial persecution in El Ejido, in Spain, to the murder of Mozambicans in East Germany, everywhere incidents of racist violence are inflaming passions in the heart of Europe. We often condemn the perpetrators of such violence. I think it is high time that we pointed the finger at the people who provide the ideological weapons to arm them, the soundbites. As we know, the parties of the extreme right build themselves up by exploiting social problems, job insecurity and unemployment. This is what we must fight, and we must also, where necessary, combat the spineless consensus between traditional political parties, on the left wing as well as the right, which helps gain them more sympathisers. As you ought to know, the extreme right gets into power only by exploiting and stressing our weaknesses, the areas we neglect. All those who repeat their words and their ideas are therefore giving them credibility, and all those who think they can moderate them by involving them in public affairs are making them commonplace. It is not possible to understand the strategy of the parties of the extreme right by looking only at their hatred of foreigners. Instead one must look at their overall social programme, their homophobic utterances, and their anti-cultural attitude. It then becomes clear that their strategy is one of homophobic statements, attacks on culture and on workers’ rights, opposing the right to strike, opposing the self-determination of workers. We should also avoid the situation of women being banished from the world of work due to the establishment of a ‘wage’ for mothers, as we have seen recently. The only possible response is a hardline attitude. We have only succeeded in combating the Front National effectively in France because we never had any government alliance. In Europe, we must make massive investments in education, prevention and combating job insecurity, and we must reaffirm the fact that non-European residents have the same rights as European residents. I shall conclude by thanking Commissioner Diamantopoulou for making the comparison between terrorism and racism, because I consider that it is an attack on the physical dignity of persons, and as such is intolerable. The Europe of tolerance and opposition to hatred versus the Europe of violence and indifference: this is what is at stake at the conference.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a majority of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted for urgent procedure yesterday evening. By adopting the report yesterday evening, we have paved the way for the vote to be taken this week, provided that the House approves the motion for urgent procedure. (Parliament approved the request for urgent procedure) * * * Proposal for a Council decision [COM(2001)81 – C5-0138/2001 – 2001/0045(CNS)] on further exceptional financial assistance to Kosovo.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, it is quite remarkable how Parliament is united across the boundaries of group and nation on this issue, and the Commission and the Council, too, are of the same opinion, that we want to ratify Kyoto. I hope that tomorrow's vote will see us achieve the greatest possible majority and perhaps even unanimity on this issue. There is a cultural significance to this, for – if I am right – Europe would be assuming cultural leadership on an important issue for the first time since the Second World War. In the past, we always followed the Americans, trailing them by five to ten years. This time, Europe is indeed ahead. That is something that I welcome. Only a few, though, are aware of what this ratification signifies. Signing it takes no time, but putting it into practice is extraordinarily difficult. Some have already referred to that. I find it all the more regrettable that, on this issue, we – we, the popularly and directly elected European Parliament – are only being consulted. This is a great economic upheaval – and we are only being consulted. That strikes me as extraordinarily regrettable, although I must say that I would still say ‘Yes’ to Kyoto if Parliament had the right of codecision, and I assume that my fellow Members would do likewise. I also call to mind the fact that we are acting on the basis of the precautionary principle, which has, in the meantime, found its way into our lawmaking. Were we not to act, our inaction could, under certain circumstances, lead to us being sued in the European Court of Justice and compelled to ratify Kyoto. This agreement also has its advantages, for we are putting our industry and ourselves under pressure to develop the most energy-efficient products and processes, and, finally, we are making ourselves competitive, even though I cannot deny that there will also be difficulties for some branches of industry.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, this is a momentous and historic day, a day of great joy and of profound gratitude. Let me speak personally; it is my privilege to have been a Member of this Parliament since 1979. If, when Parliament was first directly elected, someone had told me: ‘On 9 April 2003, you will decide whether the three Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Warsaw Pact states Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia, and then also Malta and Cyprus, will join the European Union’, I would have said in reply, ‘That is a tremendous dream, that is a fantastic vision.’ Yet this dream, this vision, is now becoming reality, and let us be deeply grateful for it and rejoice! (Applause) We also think back over Europe's history, for we cannot shape the future unless we know the past. Our thoughts go back to the terrible, criminal years of National Socialism from 1933 to 1945. We think back to 17 June 1953, to the Soviet tanks in Budapest in 1956 and in Prague in 1968, and cast our minds back to the great freedom movements of the 1980s, remembering Solidarity, the popular desire for freedom in Central and Eastern Europe, and 9 November 1989, the day when the wall came down. Robert Schuman – whose name our Chamber bears – said, as long ago as the 1960s: ‘One day, all Europeans will belong to the European Community, to the European Union, in freedom and in peace.’ Our group has always had that as its objective. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all those who have played their part in this, above all to Mr Brok for his work as rapporteur, but also to the Committee on Budgets' rapporteurs, Mr Böge and Mr Colom i Naval, and also to all in the Commission, whom you, Commissioner Verheugen, represent. The candidate countries can now look back on the massive efforts they have accomplished, but there are still more massive efforts ahead of them. Above all else, we must bring Europe together and reconcile it, both morally and intellectually. It is for that reason that we would have very much welcomed it if the Czech Government under their great President Vaclav Havel and his successor Vaclav Klaus, had had the strength and the courage to utter even one word of regret and sorrow about the people who were expelled. We have to use truth to bring about reconciliation, and now we all have to look to the future together. To those who believe that our European home is not yet finished and that they should therefore not give their approval to enlargement, I say this: we have succeeded in bringing the Convention into being, and we will work hard to get us a European constitution soon, and to set all Europeans on their shared journey into the future on the basis of law. A quite overwhelming majority in our group – it is almost unanimous – says ‘yes’ to every one of these countries, bidding them welcome to the European Union, to our community of values. Let us, together, take into the future this old Europe, which keeps on renewing itself! That is what we want for our continent. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Erasmus Mundus will significantly improve the quality of higher education in Europe: 250 European university courses, more than 4 000 scholarships for post-graduate students, 1 000 visiting professors from third countries, 4 000 students, 800 university scholars by 2008, partnerships between universities in third countries and Erasmus-Mundus universities in Europe – these are all important elements in boosting Europe as a place of knowledge and – as Mrs Pack said – in creating a European learning area. The financial perspectives do not seem quite so impressive; in the first reading we made it clear that EUR 200 million was not enough, we called for EUR 300 million. I agree with other Members that the Council’s proposal of EUR 180 million is completely unacceptable. Increasing the funding does not, by any means, put a burden on existing programmes. Mrs de Sarnez’s proposed compromise of EUR 230 million is sensible and it is in accordance with the new Interinstitutional Agreement. I think the excellent Commissioner Reding is certain to vote in favour of these perspectives. What is the point of a highly ambitious Lisbon objective if we do not have plenty of specific measures? In Germany, we have learned from experience – and the Pisa study has made it very clear – that these do not come free of charge. What is the point of it when we are not investing enough in education in our Länder? We will then be clearly lagging behind. It is the European Union that must award the ‘Erasmus-Mundus Masters Courses’ quality mark, so that we can then clearly identify a particular higher education, with good proficiency in the languages of at least two Member States. We have left a clear political mark both in terms of courses and in hosting students. There is one more thing that I feel is important. Vocational training – such as for engineers or higher technicians – must be integrated in such a way that we achieve uniformity in higher education too. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, forgive me, but I do not understand the answer we have been given. I do not understand it at all and I still do not know whether or not the presidency will support our demands.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Madam President, first of all could I put on record my thanks to Mr Bowe who was the budget rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment for the first half of the mandate. The general approach to the discharge procedure is to look at the percentage of the budget line that is spent. If 95% or more is spent then a tick is put beside that item. If less than 80% is spent there is a black mark. But if we have the information at our disposal we should look more carefully at the achievement of goals with this money, rather than purely the fact that the money has been spent. For example, on the fifth environment action plan only 70% of the budget was spent. The reason for this is that there were not sufficient good projects; in fact some calls had no response at all. We should not give money to bad projects. However, there is one slight caveat to that: I hope our bidding systems are not becoming so bureaucratic that some potential bidders with good projects are put off from bidding at all. I will mention public health budget line B3-4301 on combating cancer. In 1999 there was a substantial under-spend on that and I am pleased to see that in 2000 it was almost fully committed including the overhang from 1999. It would be verging on the criminal not to deploy resources allocated for combating diseases such as cancer. It is true that the environment budget of EUR 200 million – that is GBP 125 million – was only half spent in the year 2000. The reason for this was the Life projects, which make up half this budget, and which could not be spent in 2000 because the legal basis was not determined in conciliation until July 2000. I am pleased to see that the five-year project has been telescoped into a four-year project instead. Despite the substantial under spending in the budget that is largely due to the Life III lines, and bearing in mind that the Court of Auditors have not voiced concerns, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy recommends that discharge be granted in respect of the 2000 budget for the budget lines within its competence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, viewed apart, the problems facing Ambon have their own particular characteristics, yet at the same time there are certain similarities with the situation in East Timor and also in Aceh and other parts of Indonesia. It is the case with all these areas that we must not labour under the misapprehension that the international community is in a position to solve the problems. The international and European Community can only play a modest role. We must also avoid giving the local population the impression that when international institutions start getting involved everything will come right again. We must spare the local population the disappointment that this expectation could lead to. Of course this does not alter the fact that the situation in Ambon is serious. Our first priority is to remain vigilant and endeavour to find a solution, but we must not add fuel to the fire. In my view, the resolution produced contains all the necessary ingredients. We might consider modifying the religious aspect slightly but, even without such a shift of emphasis, this resolution makes it adequately clear that the European Parliament attaches great importance to preventing a similar situation from arising in Ambon as arose in East Timor.

Political group: ELDR