GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur. I have a feeling that these kinds of topic, and this report, are right up his street, and I would almost go so far as to say that it is not a coincidence that this sitting is so well attended this evening. The proposal under discussion is a direct result of the report by the Committee of Independent Experts. An internal control service is to be set up. Yet, my group feels it is too early at this stage to make a final decision on centralised ex ante control or decentralised ex ante control within the Directorates-General themselves. We need to give this some more thought and weigh up the pros and cons very carefully. I also believe that, as far as this is concerned, we need the advice from the European Court of Auditors. We cannot make a decision until we have the proposal on the new financial regulations, and within the framework of the discussion on these new regulations, a number of aspects will need to be laid down definitively. We will be backing all amendments which help clarify the division between financial control and internal audits, as currently proposed. We are also in favour of providing information more effectively. In our view, there is one note of discord in the report, although this is not the view of the entire group, and that is the question: should internal control only be set up in respect of the Commission, the Council and Parliament, or should it also extend to smaller institutions? In my opinion, it should also apply to smaller institutions. This may not be practical – it is indeed the case that only a few people deal with financial control in those institutions, but the principle that the person who gives ex ante approval also self-assesses after the event is wrong. These two activities should always remain separate. This also applies to smaller institutions even though they have fewer staff. If we lay something down for large institutions, the neutrality principle proposed by the Committee of Independent Experts should then apply across the board. I am not in favour of making any exceptions to this rule. Otherwise, my group is able to support all the rapporteur’s amendments, especially those which stipulate that annual progress reports should be compiled. Public opinion is so sensitive in this area that I feel this Parliament should deal with this topic every year, and not only at the discharge stage. It should also deal with the question of how matters can be improved in terms of control, and, in the light of public opinion, we cannot do enough about this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, before I left for Strasbourg to come to this part-session, a pensioner from Cremona, a town in the Po Valley on the River Po, asked me to tell him when it would at last be possible to sail on the Po. In order to do something to meet the expectations of this pensioner, who is called Giuseppe Italia, lives in Cremona and would love to be able to sail on the Po, I voted for the Piecyk report, which concerns the expansion and development of sea and inland ports and intermodal terminals. I feel that it is extremely important for us to decide to develop inland shipping networks, for it would greatly reduce the intensity of heavy goods traffic travelling on roads and motorways and the damage it causes. - Hatzidakis report (A5-0231/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
I am simply pointing out that the Commissioner should not give the impression that there is no room for conciliation on this. We have room for conciliation and the advantage, if we adopt these amendments tomorrow, is that Parliament would be openly engaged in the final form of this proposal, which otherwise we will not be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we see how seriously my Party takes matters in this House. As a Member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, speaking on behalf of Lord Inglewood, I must say that it seems very nearly a year is sufficient time for the powers that be to have considered this matter. If it is not placed on the agenda this week this is clearly going to cause difficulties for the committee in question. I would urge all Members of the House, including my colleague Mr Provan, to vote in favour of this suggestion.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of this text. I am not particularly in favour of this world system of selling ‘pollution rights’. Specific experiments that I have been able to conduct with manufacturers in my sector in fact show that these economic agents can make consistent efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I nevertheless wanted to amend the Commission’s initial proposal. It seemed very important, in fact, that the scope of the directive should be extended to the chemicals and aluminium sectors. By adopting my amendments, Parliament has endorsed my position. I also very much regret that the Council of Ministers has not agreed with the stance taken by my fellow Members on this point, thus delaying the inclusion of the chemicals and aluminium sectors.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, you said, did you not, if I understood you correctly, that you have not yet evaluated the answers given to you in Greece? None of them? I should like in particular to take the example which you too referred to of the caretta caretta. I do not know what you have been given in writing, but dozens of testimonies and on site inspections, including by me personally and by environmental organisations, have now proven that what is down in writing is not being applied. And never has. Be that as it may, will you be evaluating the answers given to you?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, in my view, we could have, when dealing with the points of order, quite legitimately gone back to the absolutely scandalous words of Mr Berlusconi, who has designs on being the future president of the European Union. My colleague and the Chairman of my group, Mr Barón Crespo, and my colleague Mr Swoboda were demanding that you condemn outright the words of Mr Berlusconi. Every Member of this House is aware that we had a very broad consensus on avoiding the risks of an equation of Islam with terrorism and condemning anything that could be seen to be a war between civilisations. But we expect you to condemn outright what Mr Berlusconi said. That is my point of order.

Political group: PSE
I should like to take advantage of the vote to point out the following: First, my agreement with the European Parliament proposals for higher compensation margins. Secondly, this requirement should not result in higher premiums for citizens, given that insurance companies have a great deal of room for manoeuvre, in conjunction with the measures being proposed by the Italian Presidency to improve road safety and reduce road traffic accidents. Τhirdly, the importance of the insured's having a priority claim over creditors in the event of the bankruptcy of an insurance company.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am one of those who were most opposed to doing away with the Friday sitting. I am therefore entitled to state that I think that, when a request is made to postpone the vote on a report which is timetabled for the end of Thursday’s sitting, and which must be presented by a Member who has to travel 2000 km to get home and who, if he cannot take the only flight available, on Thursday afternoon, is then forced to go home on Friday evening, we ought also to show some flexibility with regard to his situation in future. Unfortunately, this is a vote I consider irresponsible, and it places us in this situation, which we must manage in as responsible a manner as possible in the coming months.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I object to the fact that we are cutting back the time for Question Time; it is one of the few occasions when backbenchers have a chance to get their time on the floor and I do ask you to extend it to one and a half hours as is on the agenda. That is the agenda and I think that we should stick to the agenda.

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Commission’s proposal, which is the subject of the report we have discussed today, aims to establish a programme of Community action to support and encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion. The aim of this programme is to encourage the Member States to combine their efforts to combat poverty and social exclusion in Europe in a framework of open coordination. To be more effective, this coordination must be based on national action plans to combat exclusion, with guidelines established at European level. The European Parliament examined this text at first reading in November last year under the French Presidency, which promoted a number of social affairs initiatives and was intent on making the fight against poverty a priority on the European social agenda. The Council’s common position fully or partially incorporates 25 of the 47 amendments adopted by Parliament during the sitting of 16 November 2000, while the Commission accepted 31 amendments. To my great regret, the Council has rejected some of the most important amendments. It has rejected the reference to the revised Social Charter (1996) of the Council of Europe, to which the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must now be added. It does not want to retain the 90% funding for the activities to be carried out by the NGOs under the programme to combat poverty and social exclusion, bearing in mind that the same level of support has already been approved for the programme to combat discrimination. The funding of the programme also represents a stumbling block. Believing that resources on a par with ambition are needed, the European Parliament hoped to increase the budgetary envelope from EUR 70 million to EUR 100 million, but in vain! Just as questionable is the refusal to involve the European Parliament explicitly in the monitoring of the programme. I have naturally voted in favour of the amendments seeking to reinstate the provisions which were not endorsed by the Council and/or the Commission. Indeed, I think the programme ought to be as determined as possible. It should be an instrument for promoting equality of opportunity amongst all men and women, and send a strong political signal from the European Union. Just because our statistics for growth and employment are satisfactory overall, that is no reason to forget that far too many people still live on the margins of society.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that the Commission is after all a college, and it would have become the Commission today if it had offered an apology to Dorte Schmidt-Brown. When Jean-Paul Mingasson can be praised as fulsomely as he has been, praise could also be given to the employee who really deserved it. I feel the Commission must have an opportunity to say: ‘Good work, Dorte Schmidt-Brown. We apologise on behalf of the Commission for the poor treatment that you have received’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the President-in-Office's speech seemed to me to be rather on the biased and general side, but I found that Commissioner Patten's speech was realistic and focused well on the different problem areas. We therefore now need to discuss the different issues. Firstly, tomorrow marks the start of a major UN session where 159 Heads of State will be present. In what form will the European Union be present and at what level? I feel that it is extremely important for us to establish ourselves at the very highest level and to make our presence felt. A discussion on priorities should include economic policy, but our economic policies are all inward-looking and only concern the interior of Europe. It is also just as important not to let go of development policy, for that creates stability and peace and has to target Russia and China as well as developing countries. In my opinion, it is not right to ask us to choose between the Balkans and developing countries. The Member States need to take these factors on board. Working towards constitutionalisation of the European Union, one benefit of which would be institutional citizenship in international bodies, the creation of a European diplomacy as per the Galeote report, the cultural concern which we must take on board in order to avoid fresh incidents of colonialism, the support and valuing of democratic processes which have also been established in certain countries such as Iran, and the regulation of relations with NGOs, which could become the operational arm of the European Union – these options could all contribute to an effective political initiative for developing countries, an initiative which would assert the supremacy of European civilisation in terms of a quest for solidarity to improve quality of life and bear witness to respect for human dignity, celebrating it in every corner of the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, can we assume from that intervention that all the other Members of the British Labour Delegation believe in principles? (Laughter and applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I asked a question about the legal basis, Articles 31 and 32, and the decommissioning funds. I distrust the Commissioner. The only way I could believe the Commissioner would be for the Commission to publish its legal opinion on the nuclear package. Would the Commissioner agree to that?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first I would like to heartily congratulate and thank the budget’s main rapporteur, Mr Costa Neves, with regard to his excellent draft budget and his constructive cooperation. Likewise, I wish to thank the second budget rapporteur, Kathalijne Buitenweg, and also, in particular, the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Terrence Wynn, for his skilful and constructive leadership of the Committee. The budget for 2002 now being debated is a moderate and disciplined one. Appropriations have grown by just 2%, which is clearly below the figure for the financial perspectives. The European Parliament has shown an enormous sense of responsibility, which our group values highly. This budget is a considerable improvement on the Council’s first proposal. The agricultural budget is realistic. There are more funds available to cover outstanding commitments under categories 2 to 4, and there is a common call to use them to clear arrears. The reform of the Commission proceeds, and any expenditure that should not in fact arise, has been cut. We particularly appreciate the fact that no negative reserve, that is to say, no uncovered appropriation, has been adopted. In the first reading of the budget some cuts were made to external actions, such as the western Balkans CARDS programme. Now we have been able to prevent most of these cuts. A total of 206.4 million euros is being proposed for the Balkans. Furthermore, the CARDS programme had already been given 63 million euros out of this year’s budget transfers, so all in all the programme is returning to what was proposed in the Council’s draft budget. This was immensely important for my group. For the Commission’s reform 317 posts are being reserved, which guarantees that the reform will proceed. Of these, 105 are in reserve, and our group hopes that at least the majority of them may still be released. A flexible instrument had to be adopted once again this year. A compromise decision was reached on its use, according to which Spain and Portugal will see the structure of their fisheries fleets revitalised with the aid of 170 million euros, plus another 27 million in 2003. Thirty million euros are to be spent on solving border problems associated with new Member States, with a further 15 million being spent on this next year. Our group supports all these decisions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on page 27 of the annex to the Minutes my vote is recorded as having been cast in favour of Amendment No 20 to the Morillon report. I do not subscribe to the views of that amendment and I would wish that my vote be recorded as having been cast against it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, going through the voting list again with the rapporteur a moment or two ago, we came across a problem that affects the voting procedure. After consultation, we have decided that we want to substitute the 's Amendment No 9 for the first part of what we decided on in committee. If we go through the voting list accordingly, we run the risk, if we adopt part of Amendment No 22, of Amendment No 9 being disposed of. That, at any rate, is what is in the voting list. We have agreed – and I think the rapporteur will confirm this, as we have just been discussing it – that we will vote down the first part of what we decided on in committee, that is, Amendment No 22, agree to the second part, and then vote for the 's Amendment No 9 as well, in order to scrap the first part, which we have rejected. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the EU/Latin America summit (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0169/2002) by Mr Fiori, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the mid-term review of the reform of the common organisations of the market (COMs) in the context of Agenda 2000 [2001/2127(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0164/2002) by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on rural development in the framework of Agenda 2000 – interim balance in the EU and the applicant countries [2001/2041(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0155/2002) by Mr Lannoye, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Commission report entitled ‘Evaluation of the active substances of plant protection products (submitted in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC on the placing of plant protection products on the market) [COM(2001) 444 – C5-0011/2002 – 2002/2015(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on shipbuilding (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0159/2002) by Mr Howitt, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Commission Green Paper on Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility [COM(2001) 366 – C5-0161/2002 – 2002/2069(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) IN THE CHAIR: MRS LALUMIÈREVice-President EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE– Myller Report (A5-0170/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Financieel Dagblad (Financial Times) published last Friday, 2 February, carried the front-page headline: “Corus gives a fifth of its workers their marching orders”. A little further on in the financial pages, there was the headline: “Corus experiences sharp upturn”. The contrast in the pictures – it is a shame I cannot show them to you – was almost more telling: on the front page there was a picture of a sad steelworker from Wales, and in the financial pages a graph of how the profits went up when these redundancies were announced. This sort of news is commonplace now. It confronts us with the fundamental question as to what actually motivates businesses these days. Are they only in it for the money or do they have a broader vision and mission? In the Netherlands, the Socio-Economic Council published two important opinions recently, one about doing business in a socially responsible manner, with the grand title: “The acquisition of values”, and the other was about corporate governance and industrial relations. In its opinions, the Council expressly opts for a broad characterisation of a business as a joint venture between various stakeholders, and so it expressly avoids focusing attention on the creation of shareholder value for the shareholders, who seem to be the main reason behind many of the restructuring operations that have recently taken place. I see no evidence of this broader perspective or these more fundamental discussions in the European debate. The European Parliament has put this issue on the agenda again today, but this discussion must also filter through into other areas of European policy. To my mind, it lacks coherence in this respect. I will cite two examples. As regards the legislation on partnerships, people argue in completely one-dimensional terms from the perspective of the shareholders. A case in point was the discussion on the thirteenth directive on takeover bids, when Mr Bolkestein well and truly dismissed Parliament’s amendments. Another example can be found in competition policy. Commissioner Monti made it abundantly clear in our Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that he only wants to approach mergers from the point of view of the markets and consumers, and has little interest in the bigger picture. A Green Paper on corporate social responsibility, as announced this morning, is not enough. I feel the Commission must make it its business to develop a more integrated outlook, and to ensure that this works its way through into the various policy headings. Newspapers may display a certain amount of schizophrenia, but not politicians and policy makers.

Political group: PSE
Since the matter has been raised in the public arena, could I place on record the reason for the Quaestors’ recommendation? We believe that the term “constituency weeks” was an unfortunate one. They are weeks without meetings but they are weeks when the Commission, the Council and all other agents of this Parliament, including the political groups, are hard at work. If we are going to Nice to ask for more powers for this Parliament it is hardly a good precedent for us to send the whole Parliament off for four weeks, away from the place where they are elected to do their duty. Consequently, we believe that those Members – and there are many of them – who are writing reports, chairing committees, running groups and have legitimate reasons to be here should, on declaration of those objectives, be able to come and do their work in the place that they were elected to do it. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the reason that prices differ between the islands and the mainland has nothing to do with excise duty. Excise duty is absolutely identical in all parts of the United Kingdom. I should like to ask this: is the Commission aware of a recent highly reputable Swedish academic study which has demonstrated that taking all costs into account, transport costs in the UK are in fact average compared with the European Union as a whole? Taking account of non-wage labour costs, the cost of licensing and insuring vehicles and road tolls, the UK is no more expensive to drive in than any other part of the European Union. Given the Community's commitment to meeting its Kyoto commitments, I wonder whether the Commissioner would accept that the best way of doing so is by higher fuel duties, as opposed to raising the other transport costs. If you want to conserve fuel, the way to do it is through fuel duty, not other forms of taxation.

Political group: PSE