GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I should like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Markov on his excellent report which, moreover, has been adopted unanimously by the parliamentary committee. The EBRD is not connected with the European Union. Nor is it a development bank coming under the World Bank group. Its capital derives from more than 60 countries interested in the future of Central and Eastern Europe following the fall of the Berlin Wall. During the twelve years of transition, the EBRD has had to take up many challenges. Its president, Jacques de Larosière, appeared before the Confederal Group of the to report to us on its activities. Like the rapporteur, I think we have to support the bank. Indeed, even if its objective is to develop the market economy in these former Communist countries, the social, environmental and public service dimensions have not been sacrificed. The EBRD is not, as some might believe, the ambassador of ultra–liberalism. Its mandate is to invest where other banks fear to tread. I am very pleased that the EBRD concentrates its activities on the development of small and medium–sized enterprises whose key role in job creation is well known.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, now that we have voted on all the amendments to item 51, I would like to return to Amendment No 36. Our group has asked that this be voted on in two parts; we have just voted only on the first. I therefore ask you to proceed with the vote on the second half of Amendment No 36, in accordance with the request that we submitted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I was among those who were present throughout Friday. It is easy to check up on, because electronic voting took place that day. In fact, there is no question of sabotage. Rather, it is a question of taking Parliament seriously enough to find it actually embarrassing that there are only 70 Members here when we vote on important matters such as school milk or Ethiopia. This has also given rise to quite a major debate in my own country, Sweden. We must get a serious discussion under way about these matters. Either we make Friday a proper working day or we do away with it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in an ever-widening internal market, differences between systems are becoming more and more of a problem. Within the railway sector, the EU’s 15 Member States have 4 different electrical systems and 15 different signalling systems. Within 10 years, there may be 25 or 27 Member States. The differences between systems will presumably be still greater then. This is not a problem we shall solve just by finding ourselves new and, to all appearances, modern solutions. Given that, last summer, we inaugurated Europe’s longest combined bridge and tunnel in order to link Sweden and Denmark, it might well be imagined that the problem of non-interoperability had also been solved, but the reverse is true. There is one signalling system in Denmark and a quite different system in Sweden. Just to add to the complications, trains are driven on the left in Sweden but on the right in Denmark. There are various reasons why there are, in actual fact, such major differences between European countries, and these all have to do with history. One reason is that European countries have each electrified their railway systems at different times. Another is quite deliberate – never to make it easy just to go ahead and drive a train straight into another country. In today’s Europe, in which we now talk about the four freedoms and in which people, goods, capital and services must be able to move with complete freedom across all borders, every obstacle remains a problem. However, we need to remove such obstacles of various kinds. We need to harmonise and to become, as the saying goes, interoperable in different areas. It is therefore an important step for the Commission now to take initiatives whereby, step by step, we obtain the same railway system. The trans-European railway systems, in particular, constitute an obvious first step. It is important for this work to be characterised by two realisations. Firstly, the work will, in fact, have to take a certain amount of time, for it is going to cost significant sums of money, especially if we, in time, extend the trans-European networks to include other networks. It should also be pointed out that we need to combine with the Central and Eastern European countries to conduct the same operation there in the long term. The other realisation is that, in the short term at least, it is a question of finding solutions without having the same system in every country. The fact that trains can now already be driven across European borders does, in any case, show that this is possible, and it works partly because new technology can be built into locomotives.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the majority in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy have a different opinion on the problems of PVC and their prevention to that of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy firmly believes in self-monitoring in the PVC industry and its ability to take responsibility for the adverse effects of PVC throughout the material’s entire life cycle. As draftsman of the opinion, I would like to say that the PVC industry has been very aggressive in its lobbying activity. It neither sees nor admits to there being much of a problem at all. In that respect their views are in conflict with the spirit of the Commission’s Green Paper. The PVC industry does not want additional studies conducted by outsiders to support their views. Industry criticises the fact that the Green Paper focuses on a study of the far end of the life cycle of PVC products. It is nevertheless justified, as problems start to appear at the stage when responsibility for the product has moved away from industry itself towards society. Governments, which must be responsible for the disposal and final storage of products, must have an interest in the possible adverse effects of PVC. Industry, on the other hand, fears these problems, as they might have an impact on the use of products and alternatives in the sector. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has made an evaluation of the Green Paper, which, in my opinion, has been greatly influenced by the industry’s aggressive line. A majority in the Committee voted in favour of an opinion in which concern for the environment and for health is linked to a strategy of voluntary commitments on the part of industry. The EU’s current regulations on product labelling, waste incineration, and sorting at landfill sites are adequate for the majority in the Committee. As draftsman of the opinion, I would like to say that I supported the minority opinion. The problems at the far end of PVC’s life cycle have to be resolved, and industry cannot do that on its own.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for attending this session and for observing the deadlines which are set by both parties when we have our debates. I would also like to confirm that we support the general structure of the project. However, having listened to what he has said on the five specific programmes, I would like to remind the Commissioner that Parliament is concerned that the number is too low and I would like to ask the Commissioner about how he intends to monitor the specific programmes, both in Parliament and in the Council of Ministers. My second question concerns the instruments. I hope that the Commissioner will talk about the flexibility that is needed and which, in our opinion, seems crucial, between the proposed new instruments and the old instruments that have been retained, at least on a temporary basis. My third and final question is this: what guarantees can the Commissioner give that the Council will keep back the proposed EUR 17.5 billion? I also have a tie-breaker question. Is the Commissioner personally in favour of continuing the work of the Joint Research Centre in the best possible circumstances?

Political group: PSE
In its broad economic policy guidelines for 2000, the European Commission makes it clear that it advocates neo-liberal policies, emphasising as it does the Stability Pact and monetarist policies, faster liberalisation of the telecommunications, energy, postal services, transport and financial services sectors, together with an increase in flexible working arrangements and in the modernisation of social protection systems. This means that despite referring to the need for active employment policies to combat unemployment and to achieve full employment in the medium term, the Commission continues to prescribe the same solutions, which have not brought any net improvement in employment, since the current unemployment rate is even higher than it was at the start of the decade, as the Commission recognises. In this European Parliament report, the rapporteur makes some criticisms of the acceleration of the convergence and stability criteria objectives, insists on the need to increase investment and accepts the adoption of global fiscal measures in order to combat financial speculation. This is a positive step. Nevertheless, he accepts faster liberalisation of the transport and energy sectors, an increase in flexible working and the process of budget consolidation already under way, thus highlighting his own contradictions. We have presented various amendments with a view to improving the content of the report. In particular, these are designed to strengthen the position of small and micro-enterprises and their associations, to advocate jobs associated with proper rights and reduced working hours, and to call into question the Stability Pact and the consequences of implementing it. Unfortunately, with the exception of support for SMEs, we were unable to have any of these amendments adopted, and have therefore voted against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I too congratulate Mr Gallagher on his excellent work. We have spent two years extensively discussing the Community fisheries market. It is now finally the turn of the whole House to adopt a stance through this report which was approved by a large majority in the Committee on Fisheries. Our market has a deficit of fishery products. Some 60% of the fishery products consumed in Europe are imported. The Community fisheries sector is extraordinarily active and competitive and plays an important role in maintaining economic and social cohesion in Europe. Our duty is therefore to ensure and guarantee its future. The European market is not a closed market. It is open in that products from GSP countries enter free of tariffs or at low tariffs. We make strict demands on our fishermen in terms of gear, conservation and handling of catches which are not compulsory for foreign fleets. For us as Socialists, the Community preference is therefore our commitment to the Community fisheries sector, to our people, fishermen, fishing industry workers and shipowners who hope to be able to continue their activities and keep their jobs. We should not therefore, as proposed by the Commission, replace the current and flexible tariff quota system with the total or partial suspension of tariff duties. We oppose this removal of tariffs because we believe that we do not need to protect, as Mrs Langenhagen said, but at least defend a competitive and modern sector which is still not prepared for total liberalisation. The same is true of many other sectors. Many questions continue to concern us. These include the cut in financing which excludes important growth sectors such as aquaculture, the lack of definition of the information to be received by the consumer, as specifically mentioned by Mrs Fraga Estévez, with regard to the distribution of areas proposed by the Commission, and the lack of other relevant data such as minimum sizes. As Socialists, our priorities include consumer protection. The defence of quality is one way of protecting these rights. We therefore want to encourage measures which emphasise quality fishery products and, at the same time, we ask for sustainable management of resources to ensure the future of fishing. Fishing must be allowed, but in accordance with the requirements of the market and the respectful management of the product. To sum up, we Socialists want to defend European producers, consumers and importers and we believe that with the report approved by the Committee on Fisheries, with the excellent work carried out by Mrs Fraga Estévez – who I congratulate – and with the agreement reached by the Council of Ministers, we can, in the main, be satisfied.

Political group: PSE
I thank the President-in-Office for his reply. This is one step, but it is not enough. This agreement bears the signatures of the Turkish prime minister, the Turkish Government, and it is before Parliament; simply it will not be put to the vote. I should like to ask the President-in-Office if the European Union will call for this agreement to be cancelled outright as it is provocation for the regime of Turkey as a candidate country and of the customs union between Turkey and the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should also like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his answer. I must, however, regretfully inform him that his answer was still particularly vague, as my question referred to a European Parliament resolution adopted in 1987, in which, effectively, we officially recognised events such as the genocide of the Armenians between 1915 and 1917. We do not, however, know today what measures have been taken by successive Councils in order to attempt to establish relations between both these countries, given that today Turkey is still imposing an economic blockade on Armenia. My question is therefore as follows: in the context of negotiations with a view to Turkey’s accession to the European Union, has the issue of this blockade been raised, and could lifting this blockade be counted a precondition to Turkey’s accession?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the past year, it was important that confidence in Agenda 2000 should be maintained. Today we deal with the further development of the common agricultural policy post-2006, taking into consideration world trade law, with the applicant countries participating as appropriate. I emphasise that it is right at this time to make a serious and sustainable decision on the future of the common agricultural policy. However, Commissioner, the parallelism of agricultural decision-making on the one hand, and the continuance of world trade discussions on the other also have a part to play here. They can only be properly combined if the Commission adheres strictly to the whole package of WTO negotiations and allows no watering down in this case. With this in mind I would like to say that Mrs Kinnock’s comments with regard to the evaluation of the agricultural policy are an evaluation of the Agricultural Policy from 20 years ago. If we do achieve a balance in development policy and commit all industrial nations to this, we have no reason to hide behind others. Commissioner, you have always quite rightly said that only economically healthy businesses can be sustained in the long term. The concept of sustainability does not have to be continually updated. It is adequately and internationally defined and set out in Agenda 21. The issue before us today therefore is in a sense to rework the Commission’s proposals so that they are, if possible, more practical and more manageable, and at the same time to make the necessary adjustments without these adjustments asking too much of businesses or people. Regarding the simplification of the agricultural policy, with regard to the thirty-eight directives named and the possibility of Member States implementing these administratively, I would ask that still more be done to avoid hardship cases so that the simplification of European agricultural policy also fully and completely respects the basic principle of non-discrimination.

Political group: PPE-DE
President-in-Office, European industry is losing its competitive edge in regard to reaching the targets that you and the Council set for it at Lisbon by the extreme cost and time delays involved in obtaining patents in Europe. I believe the Belgian presidency undertook to make a special effort to have the Community patent installed and implemented during its presidency. I would be interested to know what progress is being made and whether you really are resolving the language issue in the European Patent Office.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is a waste of time: there are none so deaf as those who will not listen.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf very warmly for producing this own-initiative report. The Commissioner’s remarks confirm how important this initiative is. The sixth framework programme for research currently has a budget of around EUR 16 billion, of which a maximum of 2% may be allocated to agriculture and rural development. This very welcome own-initiative report calls for an increase in the funding allocated to agricultural research from the EU’s research budget. We have made a clear decision in favour of the European model of agriculture, which means that we are committed to maintaining multifunctional and sustainable farming in all regions of Europe. Further development and research are inextricably linked. To conserve resources in response to socio-economic and environmental conditions, further research in the areas of organic farming, extensive agricultural management and, above all, non-food production is essential. Developing knowledge in the use of renewables for energy and materials must be pursued as a survival strategy. As the report points out, priority should be given to improvements in yield security, quality of life and environmental compatibility. On-farm research is an indispensable tool in the integration of nature conservation and agriculture, and above all in the sustainable maintenance and use of organic habitats in the agricultural landscape. This report is intended to draw attention to the fact that agriculture research is also important for society and should be given greater priority. Again, I welcome this report on behalf of my group. At the vote in committee, greater priority was given to biotechnological research than was originally the case in the report, as we took the view at the outset that biotechnological research already has good programmes. A well-functioning rural environment is inseparably linked with a well-functioning system of agriculture. As a representative of farmers and rural regions, I welcome this report, and it is our genuine hope that these demands will finally be heard in the seventh framework programme for research.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the last speaker, I should like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for having remained present in the Chamber for the entire debate. In this speech, which will be brief, I should also like, first of all, to express my personal satisfaction at the presence in the Chamber today of the President of the Spanish government, José María Aznar, who, long before the events of 11 September had already made the defence of freedom and the fight against those who seek to curb it, such as terrorist murderers, one of the leitmotivs of his political approach. The results of this political action at European level could not be more heartening. Secondly, the Union’s immigration policy, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, requires your drive and your sensitivity towards such a burning issue, which is, I note, one of the Presidency’s objectives. I refer, for example, to the undeniable need to give a boost to Community legislation regulating aspects as important as family reunification, asylum procedure, or reception conditions for asylum seekers, in order to achieve a proper organisation of migratory flows, which effectively combats people trafficking in human need and who are responsible for the tragic deaths that are taking place in some parts of European territory, such as the Andalusian and other Spanish coastlines.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have just approved the Fraisse report on women in top-level sport. I am, however, somewhat concerned about what we voted on in paragraph 10, in which we call on the European Union to provide financial support for the operation of the European Women and Sport network, as I was under the impression that this was a private organisation of which a nephew of Mrs Fraisse is the chairman or at least plays a major role. In my opinion it is not right that Mrs Fraisse does not disclose these interests. Before something like this is done by the Commission, I would like us to establish whether any of this is true, because we do not believe that this is a particularly important organisation. Although the text does not state clearly whether it is a private organisation or not, we looked into this, and this is apparently indeed the case. I actually think this is unfair. Various Members of this Parliament had questions on this, but we did not place this on the agenda in the plenary session for reasons of discretion. I would nevertheless like all this to be investigated.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Mr President. I too should like to congratulate Mr Bushill-Matthews on his report. He has made every effort to add this report to the agenda at the earliest opportunity and, as he has already indicated, he is not to blame for the fact that that is not the case. Even the Commission has made more of an effort to ensure that that is done in time, and moreover, the content of the report presented by the Commission is more substantial than when we discussed it the first time round, because we have since gained more experience with the Growth and Employment Initiative. The report is about this Growth and Employment Initiative and about the three financial instruments which have been developed with this initiative in mind, namely the ETF start-up facility, the JEV programme and the SME Guarantee Facility. Just like last year, on behalf of my group, I should like to underline the social dimension in this respect. This initiative is the brain child of the European Parliament that was developed in the wake of the Luxembourg Summit in 1997, and right from the outset, it was made very clear at the time that the initiatives should not only focus on this highly advanced technological sector, but should also embrace the social sector, and I am of the opinion that we cannot repeat this enough. There is only one point where I cannot completely follow the rapporteur in this report, and that concerns recital F which he quotes. He refers to the United States of America in this respect. More investments are made in new initiatives over there, and the decision to set up one’s own business is made more easily. I acknowledge that this is the case, but I disagree with his analysis that the reason for this would be the US’s milder regulatory climate. In my view, this is much more related to the whole culture of entrepreneurship, the fact that people over there are used to taking initiatives, that it is not of such major concern to fail once, to go bankrupt once and start again. In my opinion, cultural factors of this kind play a much more significant role than simply the regulatory climate. This remark is not really appropriate, in my view. I hope that we can find a compromise on that score at tomorrow’s vote, for it would be unfortunate if this report were not adopted unanimously.

Political group: PSE