GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the I would like to support the position expressed by the Chairperson of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the issue we are debating. I am pleased that Commissioner Bolkestein has said that he is willing to discuss the content of the proposed synthesis report in committee, since it must be the basis for a discussion at a meeting which we hope will be very important and which will take place in my city and the city of the President for this sitting. We therefore have a special interest in Barcelona being a genuine success and that it be remembered as a truly significant advance in terms of the commitments we have been taking on since the meeting in Lisbon last year. I would like to insist on one aspect which both the Commission and the have been highlighting. This is the need to consolidate and clarify the mechanisms and objectives in the field of economic and monetary policy. There is a degree of confusion, as you know, and this has been discussed both in the Commission and in this House, between the Europe of the euro (which, as the Commissioner has said, is now close to completing its final stage with the introduction of notes and coins), the external representation of the euro and, on the other hand, the system for adopting decisions in the field of economic and monetary policy. We know that this situation is unsatisfactory and the current crisis highlights this. We hope that the present situation can be genuinely overcome, in the way that Commissioner Bolkestein’s colleague, Commissioner Solbes, has often said optimistically. However, at the same time he has been obliged to lower the growth forecasts. I would therefore like to insist on this aspect and on another which the Commissioner has not mentioned and which I believe is very important within the various elements of Lisbon and their subsequent implementation: the training and technology element. Lisbon set the objective of a fully competitive society by 2010, in which we would be able to overcome our technological and scientific backwardness in comparison with the United States, which was the term of reference established in Lisbon. I believe that this is an element which also has to be introduced into this synthesis report, and at subsequent meetings views have been expressed in agreement with this.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to thank the Commissioner for his measured statement this afternoon. Members may not know but the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall in the north-east of England which appears to be the centre of this outbreak is in my constituency and therefore I know at first hand the great devastation it is causing to the farming community and the disruption that it is causing to the meat processing industry, to say nothing of the curtailment of access to countryside pursuits. I would like to express to the farming community in the United Kingdom our great sympathy and concern with this situation. I would also like to say to colleagues from the mainland continent of Europe that we sincerely hope that we have not exported the disease to mainland Europe. I very much welcome what the Commissioner had to say about the actions that had been taken by the British Government. We all understand that slaughter and stoppage of animal movement is one of the best means of bringing the outbreak under control. He also mentioned vaccination as a further possibility. Can he say anything about the time scale for vaccination?

Political group: PSE
President, Commissioner, we are faced with a fundamental difficulty, in the exercise in which we are involved, in maintaining the balance between enlarging the EU and reforming the institutions to make that enlargement possible. British Conservatives cannot accept the report, based on the long list of ancillary items which are not on the agenda of the IGC. We are concerned by the proposals for constitutionalisation of the Union, by the proposals to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, by the progressive diminishing of the distinction between the first and second pillars, by the proposal that the Council should adopt broad guidelines of economic, employment and social convergence policies by qualified majority. These are just some examples of the complex and controversial issues which are raised. We are overloading the wish list of the IGC. The great danger, if all these extra items were to be adopted on the agenda, is that the deadline of December 2000 would inevitably be missed. Where would that leave the candidate countries like Poland and Hungary, whose government leaders have already expressed concern over the timetable? We believe the IGC should concentrate on the essential institutional reforms. It should ensure that it meets the deadline, to enable the first wave of enlargement to include Central and Eastern European countries by 2004, and to continue any further necessary reforms with the full inclusion of our new partners. If the EU delays enlargement too long, it may make it more difficult, or impossible, for some candidate countries to join within the envisaged timetable. The President-in-Office addressed some of these concerns in his speech. Commissioner Barnier in his speech said that the intention is to succeed with the reforms, not necessarily to conclude them. Some people say that this is the last opportunity for reform. I do not think that is a very fair reflection on the extraordinary reforms that many of the candidate countries have made in the last 9 and 10 years since they were within the Warsaw Pact or formerly part of the Soviet Union. Our priority is enlargement. We should not confuse or reverse our priorities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the rapporteur who dealt with the innovative measures in the former Parliament, in relation to the former Article 10 initiative, I wanted to take part in this debate to remind the new Commissioner of some of the points surrounding this which Parliament has been consistently pressing for and which we do not want to see forgotten. We fought hard to keep the innovative measures within the new round of structural fund programmes and I am really pleased that we are here today, both confirming this and the EUR 3 million that is going to be available through agreeing the new guidelines. I particularly want to record two findings for the Commissioner. One is that we – and the people out there – see that the innovative measures have been a very important stepping stone for local authorities and local communities who are not really into the Structural Funds, but should be, to learn how to do it through small-scale projects and then be able to become more effective parts of mainstream programmes in future years. We came up with a ten-point programme to say how that could be done. When I go back to my own region, east of England, and find that not one local authority used this money in that last period, I doubt whether we have been as effective as we need to be in the future to ensure those new communities are welcomed in. Secondly, we talked about the need to work in partnership with local government and local authorities including, for example, through the Directoria event. Some of your officials are not so comfortable about that and I detect a moving away from it within this new set of proposals, but I warn you that that would be a step in the wrong direction. These people are our partners. They help us reach the people in most need within the disadvantaged regions and it is no good us making speeches about the democratic deficit in Europe and then ignoring the contribution that local authorities can make at the local level. Finally, however, I welcome the proposals. I believe you are trying to be flexible. You are trying to allow regions to go away and come up with their own proposals and to come back and submit them to you. You are right to do that and I welcome what you are seeking to do.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you pointed out that a range of measures is required. As we have heard in this House, ice-strengthening is also required in certain marine areas. Is the Commission prepared to support this regulation’s introducing a binding condition concerning this matter? Or what other measures is the Commission prepared to take?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is said that proverbs are the expression of the wisdom of nations and, according to a French proverb, every cloud has a silver lining. The appalling disaster of the World Trade Center and the launch by a few madmen of a campaign of anthrax poisoning can at least be credited with waking up public opinion and, through public opinion, waking political leaders, making them more aware of the dangers of the development of an international form of terrorism that is bent on imposing its view of the world by all means possible. In this regard, one only has to think of the recent sabre rattling by Osama Bin Laden. I hope, by the way, that this will be his last, because he will surely soon have to account to international justice for his crimes. I hope, however, that following his imminent fall, the international community will pursue its action to control and ban biological and chemical weapons in order to eliminate the terrible threat that they pose. This is the reasoning behind Parliament’s drafting of the motion for a resolution that will be submitted tomorrow for the approval of our fellow Members. We are pleased to see the change in the attitude of the American government which, in July, withdrew from negotiations on concluding a protocol to implement the Convention, as you have just reminded us, Commissioner, and we hope that the new conference that is due to take place next week in Geneva, which you informed us about, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, will consequently take place under the best possible auspices. We wish to thank you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, as representative of the Council, for having assured us of the Council’s desire to coordinate the actions of the Member State governments in this area. To this end, we call on the Commission to set up, under its own control, a specialist agency, that could rapidly intervene whenever breaches of the Convention are suspected. Could you, Commissioner, give us your personal opinion on this matter?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we too welcome the Cunha report, which we support. The statistics show that approximately 130 000 farmers and around 400 000 seasonal workers are involved in tobacco growing, in addition to all those involved in the production chain. This is therefore a serious matter which we feel requires greater analysis on the part of the Commission, not least in the light of Communication No 264 of 15 May 2001, which contains a clear statement to the effect that, should the Commission decide on a political proposal for action, all the repercussions and implications of this strategy for tobacco growing and the reduction of aid to growers would, indeed, be assessed. For this reason and also for the reasons expounded by other Members regarding the limited actual effect the measure would have on cigarette consumption, as regards the issue of smoking, it is therefore important, moreover, to preserve the research fund, particularly for agronomic research on broad-leaf tobacco, for that represents our only hope if we are to reduce the harmful effects of smoking and contribute to the right of all consumers to health too.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the vote on Mrs Villiers’ report is also on the agenda. It so happens that the report has not yet been debated, and will not be until after the voting this evening. Mrs Villiers’ report deserves better than to be voted on tomorrow morning. I therefore move that we postpone the vote on the Villiers report until the November II part-session.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, an accident such as the Aznalcoyar accident – which took place in my country in 1998 – plus almost 300 000 sites identified as definitively or potentially polluted in the European Union – they have been pointed out by Mrs Niebler – are direct examples of the need for effective rules at European Union level to make the ‘polluter pays’ principle a reality. I understand and share the concern to make progress in environmental terms while at the same time maintaining the economic good health of companies, although I believe that is an argument which is used too often and which often does not respond to the reality of the effort companies can and must make in order to conform to this and other Community legislation. I believe that the common position would have achieved, or has achieved in fact, a satisfactory balance between legal certainty, environmental protection and industrial development. However, I believe that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, despite having done good work, is tomorrow presenting certain amendments – such as No 9 and No 16 – which excessively weaken the common position and which I cannot support. We cannot accept that the mere fact of complying with legal activities should be a licence to fail to comply or to be able to act irresponsibly. If measures such as these are applied – such as those proposed in these amendments – accidents such as the Aznalcoyar accident would once again go entirely unpunished in whichever country they took place. I would, however, like to point out that I support Amendment No 46, since I believe that, otherwise, we would further weaken the system of environmental responsibility in certain types of maritime transport, which I believe to be important. With regard to the issue of financial guarantees, I believe that it improves the Commission’s proposal – which did not provide for them – but that it has not been either as ambitious as initially hoped or as concrete as it could have been. I understand the need to give companies a period for adaptation and I hope, of course, that they will do so as soon as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is not only during the last four months with this second military conflict that we have discussed the problem of the Caucasian people and Russia. We have also done so frequently in the past. So far, we have not yet had any success in the present Russian military conflict against the Chechen people. There is still no peace in this region and, despite the fact that the European Parliament has always made its political views very clear, we have not yet been successful. I think that new political opportunities have opened up for us in Russia following the elections to the Duma and the resignation of President Yeltsin. I think that, in addition to considering what sanctions are sensible, the European Parliament must also try to engage in political dialogue with Russia. The composition of the Duma is quite different from any time in the past and that gives us a chance to find political allies, bring this military conflict in Chechnya to an end through political means and finally allow peace to come to the region. We all know that the problem of the Caucasian peoples will be far from resolved once the military conflict has come to an end. We shall then need political dialogue. We shall need political cooperation because this conflict did not come about today. Its roots lie in the history of the Caucasian people in and against Russia and against deportation and occupation by Russia. I think that it would be completely in keeping with the purpose of the European Parliament if we found allies for political dialogue once the military conflict has ended. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not have any comment to make on the Minutes, but I do want to say something about the European Parliament’s information services. I do not know whether I have picked the right moment to say this. It does not concern the Minutes, but relates to something else. Can I go ahead? Right then, a fellow MEP has just given me the session news about the debate we had yesterday on the Ludford report, and I am disappointed to note that it makes no mention of the statement I made on behalf of our Group. I would ask the parliamentary services to look into why it was left out.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, it would be a shame if, at this difficult time, the European institutions were to fall into the trap of being both overzealous and too market-oriented at the same time. On the one hand, in the name of what is in this case totally blinkered liberalisation, they require full adherence to the State aid system, which prevents any action being taken to support airlines. On the other hand, there is a genuine danger that we will find ourselves – there have already been 30 000 job losses within the space of 30 days – with 100 000 jobs being lost in 100 days, in a sector which, moreover, enjoys little in the way of social protection. For two months, we have been saying that 11 September changed the world and the balance of society. It would be a shame if we were to miss the political significance of this and fail to review the order of our priorities. In European integration based on social cohesion, in a Europe built on the fundamental principle of work, what priority should we today give to the risk of an uncontrolled wave of unemployment? Do we still think we can prevent the inevitable market crisis? We are all aware that this crisis has roots in the past, that it is more than just a consequence of the events of 11 September, that it is also the result of excessive market fragmentation. However, we do not feel that going to the opposite extreme – bringing about a huge merger which would ultimately only save three national airlines: the French, British and German companies – would be a healthy solution. We are actually not so very far off this situation, considering what happened to Sabena and the engineered drop in the nominal value of the shares of a large number of airlines which are in danger of selling at a loss. A prime example is Alitalia. Lastly, Mr President, I welcome the code of conduct for US airlines intended to avoid piracy in the market, provided that, as others have said, the European governments do genuinely intend to enforce it, for otherwise it will be just another list of unfulfilled good intentions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the , I just want to thank all the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. They voted unanimously for the six amendments that allow this report to go beyond the Commission’s proposal, which only sought to unfreeze land for organic farmers and primarily to remain within the context of the COM agreements. The whole of Parliament wanted to go further and send a positive signal to breeders generally and also, at least initially, to farmers doing environmental work. I venture to hope, on behalf of my group, and no doubt on behalf of many others, that the Council will understand and follow our lead in the matter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am not a particular friend of the Bush government, but I would take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the Americans and the coalition for the military action in Iraq. It was swift and effective and succeeded in its purpose of removing of an evil regime. The terrible consequences for the whole of the Middle East foreseen by some in this plenary did not arise. Having thanked the Americans, it is time to tell them that we do not expect them to stay in Iraq for one hour longer than is necessary. I am confident that they share this view, and it is my hope that the United Nations will play the dominant role in post-war Iraq. The European Union too has a role to play in Iraq in the months to come – the role of supporting democratic development in order to stabilise the whole region. We can draw on the experiences of the Union's efforts in Afghanistan and I look forward to seeing a united Europe behind this new, big challenge in Iraq, starting with the lifting of sanctions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Pack for her report, and the Commission for the efforts it is making to remove obstacles to strengthening and promoting sport. I believe that if we want the European Year of Education through Sport – 2004 – to be a success, we must work hard to ensure that it does not end up as just another action that is set up by the EU but which never actually reaches the citizens. In this regard, and so that this action does not go unnoticed, I think we need to make use of all the institutions at local, regional and national level that have been working for a long time to promote the educational value of sport. These institutions should contribute to this action in a coordinated fashion, contributing synergies, which is the most important thing. The promotion, dissemination and study of all sciences related to physical activity and sport is the best weapon we have to educate people against intolerance and xenophobia and to support social integration.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I will focus on just one point: is a European regulation for telecommunications needed? Nick Clegg is saying that it only has to be provisional and I am saying that it must be permanent and firmer than the current regulation. I would have liked Nick Clegg to give greater consideration to the analyses of distinguished economists from Oxford and Cambridge, who stress that if competition policy is ex post, then the regulation has to be ex ante to meet the economic, social and environmental aims. The rapporteur stresses that incumbent operators must give way to competition and, although this is true, it will not automatically be efficient, nor will it even be effective where competition is limited. The European telecoms sector has just come through a disastrous period in terms of investment and employment and has frittered away its lead with the GSM provision. A UMTS regulation would have allowed the use of infrastructure to be shared, instead of investors duplicating them and getting heavily into debt by doing so. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the ‘price’ criterion and the ‘quality’ criterion forced the UK regulator to impose greater quality obligations on British Telecom. As regards the social and territorial cohesion objective, the Commission report is particularly weak. Is there really universal access? We do not know. Does it need to be extended with effective territorial coverage for mobile phones with access for everyone to a fast Internet connection? There again, there is no opinion. Generalising the call for tenders procedure could favour all the pressures for eliminating universal service. As regards the issue of calculating the costs for special financing, the answers vary significantly depending on the choice of the relevant territory. All this becomes all the more important in the context of enlargement. Who will dare to say the liberalisation will be enough to ensure that private capital is invested en masse. I will therefore speak strongly in favour of more stringent European regulation. There is no evidence to support the idea that the national regulatory authorities should simply be independent and regulate themselves. These authorities must be part of a legislative and regulatory framework in the public interest.

Political group: GUE-NGL