GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. – The Committee on Budgetary Control considered tabling a number of amendments to this year’s budget, looking at the implementation figures of the current and previous years budgets alongside the corresponding analysis contained within the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet. We also looked at the Court of Auditors’ special reports. Whilst these are drawn up pursuant to Article 248(4) of the Treaty for the purpose of discharge, we actually think there is some value in our committee and the Committee on Budgets looking into them and looking at how the money is being spent in the current year in areas where the Court of Auditors found problems in the past. Looking at the evaluation reports, the Commission has produced a lot of documentation concerning the preliminary draft budget, for example for 2001, which included a working document presenting summaries of results of a number of mostly external evaluations. Those were carried out at the request of the Commission itself and referred to the financial year 1999, the most recent one for which the final data was available. The material was obviously useful for both the preparation of the 2001 budget and for the 1999 discharge. So the committee would like to recommend to all the specialised committees concerned to take into account the results of those evaluations. In the end we tabled a very short paper to the Committee on Budgets with a number of recommendations which we hope will be taken on board. The House will no doubt be aware that I personally have taken an interest in the budget and tabled a number of amendments. I look forward in the future to seeing roughly the same sort of exercise and trying to get rid of a number of very small and more insignificant budget lines, as well as making this House and the Commission much more efficient, do less and do it better.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Roth-Behrendt expressed very many of my own thoughts. We have now obtained a first-rate enumeration of a variety of measures. But how do we make use of the sense of crisis to which this ecological disaster has led? I would compare the situation with an earlier generation’s introduction of the Plimsoll line, a marking which was introduced to prevent insurance fraud involving inferior vessels. Where is the sense of crisis which generations before us had? I consider that what we should adopt is the form of certification that Mrs Roth-Behrendt speaks about, the identification in the form of green marks on tankers which certain harbours in Europe have brought up for discussion. We must also critically examine the classification societies. I do not think that we can accept their procedures. We need independent procedures and procedures involving public control. Finally, I want to say that, when my country provides environmental aid to shipowners who wish to improve the quality of the environment, there are units within the Commission who regard this as prohibited aid to shipyards. Within the Commission, the one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. It is not an acceptable procedure that measures to improve the environment, which are in keeping with the Commission’s guidelines, cannot be taken because these are considered to constitute prohibited aid to shipyards.

Political group: ELDR
I too believe that we should not hold this debate without the relevant Commissioner here. It is far too important. We want the debate settled, we want the Commissioner to act, but we want him to act having heard all of the debate and not on the basis of information passed on second or third hand. We must adjourn the debate until the Commissioner is here.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must congratulate Mr Μusotto on his report, which is a job extremely well done. We must look, first, at what conclusions we can draw on the basis of progress so far and, secondly, at the challenges facing us. As regards what conclusions we can draw from the policies applied so far, what we can say is that we have clearly made progress, but that this progress has varied from one Member State to another. In some Member States there have been very positive results and a great deal of progress, while in others such as my own, unfortunately, the results have not been as positive as they might have been. This means that governments need to get the message, especially in the light of the new regulation now being applied, which is more decentralised than the previous regulation, and do what they can to bring about the results which other countries have achieved. Secondly, the question of enlargement is now a factor, bringing with it even greater demands. Because numerous poor countries are joining, this will, as we all know, artificially inflate the income of numerous regions in comparison with the Community average. Because of the statistics, numerous regions will cease to be covered unless they take measures during a programming period. Consequently, 0.45% of the Community GDP earmarked for the Structural Funds must be the lower limit. We cannot drop any lower and have reliable policies. Many of my fellow Members disagree with this view and they do, of course, have every reason to put forward their arguments. But what we have to ask ourselves, especially those of us who really believe in the European Union and its prospects, is just how much money we are spending from the Member States' GDP in order to achieve the ambitious objectives set by the European Union. Is it because we are spending so much money that we object every time the Community budget increases? At some point we must realise that ambitious objectives cannot be achieved without the necessary funding.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to congratulate Mrs Smet on this courageous own-initiative report. Not everyone in the various states is giving your report a joyful welcome. It may escape many of us that, in the context of international relations, and particularly where development cooperation is concerned, it was not so long ago that discussion of human rights was absolutely taboo. In the past, we were apparently always so kind to each other that, during negotiations, people did not even say what they really thought of situations in certain countries. What we now have before us is therefore very much a radical departure from this. I hope that in future, we will have a women’s rights paragraph when negotiations are started in certain countries. We often hear that human rights are women’s rights. It should be self-evident that women’s rights are a vital component in development cooperation. In every culture across the world, women play a specific and decisive role in social, economic and cultural development and in social progress. In my experience, it is in the fight against human trafficking, and particularly the fight on behalf of the victims, that this need for a strong women’s policy becomes evident. Why is this report important, and why should it not become a document that pays mere lip service? I would immediately remind you of the situation of women in various future Member States where women are still being traded like pieces of furniture. Looking a little further, we see the Balkans, where, in certain parts of Albania, the Kanoun, the people’s legislation, continues to be in use to this day. That text, the Kanoun, the code of laws of Lek Dukagjin, states that a woman is nothing more than a sack that is made to last for a certain amount of time, comparable to a product with a sell-by-date. And that in the context of women’s rights in 2003! Another example is the person in charge in Ghana, who told me that women yield more than tomatoes. Why should we not trade in them in that case? It may be a good idea simply to send this report to a host of embassies, consulates, and people active in international affairs, so that people become aware of what it contains and will consider the fact that a women’s rights paragraph is a human rights paragraph, and is of vital importance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, you want to build the internal market on purely commercial principles and with fiscal and regulatory competition, when an efficient internal market in accordance with the European social model requires the creation of public assets and a substantial harmonisation of the rules at European level. In order to impose your views, you tend to use the cutlass method. I would like to take my turn to say that the directive on services represents a real danger, a poison for the European Union. You want liberalisation in all areas, while in January 2004 Parliament again rejected the liberalisation of the education, health, social services and water sectors. You want to remove the exclusive rights for services of general economic interest and impose the rules of public markets, while Parliament has asked for these services to have a legal codecision framework and given its opinion in favour of a right of autoproduction for public organisations. You want to extend the principle of mutual recognition and the application of the law of the supplier’s country of origin across the board. This can only cause ill-feeling and disputes. The only method that can unite Europeans would involve establishing common positive criteria in the different sectors of the internal market by codecision, which would produce harmonisation rules in accordance with our social model. I must also highlight the lack of consultation of civil society in your practice. This is largely responsible for the bad quality of texts and for the large number of disputes. The Lamfalussy method for financial services is much more participative than the one that you use in other areas where you seek to obtain a blank cheque to eliminate regulatory barriers. Nevertheless, the Lamfalussy method is handicapped by many inadequacies that we wish to overcome: the lack of a right of call-back for Parliament, insufficient economic analyses and consultations that are still largely limited to professionals. For all these reasons, I beseech my colleagues – and I have already written to them all to this effect – to re-establish the political line in Parliament in favour of the social market economy. This line was sacrificed at the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. In order to re-establish it, we need to adopt the amendments tabled by Messrs Miller and Ortega.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, given that the House has just rejected the initiative and that the Council is not present, I think we should now vote on the legislative resolution, and vote in favour of it. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0311/2002) by Mrs Elena Ornella Paciotti, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the Commission communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on 'Network and information security: proposal for a European policy approach' [COM(2001) 298 – C5-0657/2001 – 2001/2280(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0319/2002) by Mr Francesco Fiori, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the Commission communication on alternative fuels for road transportation and on a set of measures to promote the use of biofuels [COM(2001) 547 – C5-0160/2002 – 2002/2068(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0323/2002) by Mr Michel Hansenne, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the Nineteenth annual report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the Community’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy activities – Overview of the monitoring of third country anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard cases [COM(2001) 571 – C5-0013/2002 – 2002/2020(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0327/2002), by Mrs Jillian Evans, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council regulation on the animal-health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC [7839/2/2002 – C5-0309/2002 – 2000/0221(COD)] (The President declared the common position approved) *** Report (A5-0333/2002) by Mrs Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection [COM(2001) 510 – C5-0573/2001 – 2001/0207(CNS)] (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, within the framework of the second report on the stabilisation and association process for South-East Europe, the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy supports the Commission proposal and I should like, of course, to congratulate the rapporteur. We believe that, within the framework of the commitments made by the Thessaloniki European Council in June 2003, launching European integration partnerships for the Western Balkans merits setting a medium-term objective based on an action plan – this is our proposal – setting out the measures and actions which need to be undertaken by the countries of the Western Balkans and the European Union. The action plan should contain an enhanced support for institution-building, of course, but also for infrastructure projects and regional trade and economic cooperation projects. In other words, priority should be given to structural and economic reforms leading to functioning market economies and sustainable development. The rate of integration into the European Union will obviously depend on the countries themselves. Nonetheless, I want to emphasise that the stabilisation and association process is the institutional framework for the course towards Europe of the Western Balkans and marks a shift in the centre of gravity from stabilisation to association with the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the accident which has just happened in Japan shows that nuclear power can never be completely safe. Even in a technologically very advanced system, the so-called human factor plays a decisive role. The resolution which has been produced is a good one, even if I should like to have seen it go further still in the positions it adopts. An example of this is point 9, because it ought to be obvious that one should not have reprocessing contracts with countries which do not comply with international standards. As we all know, Japan is one of the world’s technologically most developed countries. Nuclear power and the way in which nuclear fuel is handled are probably, all in all, no less safe in Japan than they are in our own countries. It may be worth remembering this when we happily criticise unsafe nuclear energy in other countries but do so less readily in the case of our own countries. All that is, in fact, completely certain is the fact that one can never be certain that nuclear power is completely safe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to add my own congratulations to those addressed to the rapporteur. Everyone has already said that this is a very difficult matter since various interests backed by large lobbies are involved, but also fire safety and the long-term protection and future of the environment. It will probably be a very technical debate. Pentabromodiphenyl ether. What’s in a name? This concerns bromide-based flame retardants, but also a socially very relevant theme. The previous speakers have clearly shown the problems this creates for the environment and public health. OctaBDE and decaBDE are, as a result of a Regulation on risk analysis, which is now seven years old, the first to have been placed on the first list of priority substances for risk analysis. The evaluations have not yet been concluded. Since those substances are known to be dangerous for the environment, waiting for the conclusions of that slow risk analysis would unnecessarily delay better protection of human beings and the environment. Although I should have preferred to see an immediate ban on bromide-based flame retardants – as my fellow MEPs are aware – I completely support the compromise, since it is also acceptable. It provides for an immediate ban on penta- and octaBDE and the banning in 2006 of decaBDE, unless – and this is important – it is proved to be harmless. It also immediately indicates that in this matter we are balanced between policy based on risk analysis and the new chemical policy that we are dealing with at present and that is designed to facilitate faster analyses, but also above all that responsibility for this no longer lies with the Commission and the Member States but with the manufacturers. This matter shows yet again that the current chemical policy with a substance-by-substance analysis takes years and that as a result the authorities are in a very weak position for protecting human beings and the environment. Therefore, in the strongest possible terms, we are calling for an urgent revision of the policy, as we are at present doing with the White Paper on Chemical Policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the severe economic slowdown, the stagnation, the recession and the increase in unemployment and poverty are some of the more visible manifestations of the failure of the European Central Bank’s rigid monetary policy and the budgetary consolidation procedure blindly imposed by the nominal convergence criteria. Modifying the spirit of the Stability Pact, therefore, is not enough. Neither is implementing it more flexibly. It is becoming increasingly obvious that an in-depth review of the pact’s objectives and criteria is required if monetary and budgetary policies are to contribute to economic growth and employment. I would like to ask the Commission and the Council the following question, therefore: when calculating the 3% budget deficit, are you prepared to discount, with immediate effect, public spending and costs incurred as a result of exceptional circumstances, such as the fires which devastated Portugal this summer? Such a measure is urgently needed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, we know that the GATS negotiations are intended to bring a greater degree of prosperity to developing countries, with liberalisation bringing advantages for consumers and generally being aimed at the companies in question. That is why I am interested to know which service sectors are being given priority by the Commission in the negotiations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this concerns the translation into English of the term ‘loi organique’, which has been rendered as ‘organic law’. We are not very familiar with this concept in the English language. I note that the Commission document – the so-called ‘Penelope’ document – uses the term ‘institutional law’ for its English-language version, which is at least a little clearer. I propose that we harmonise our English-language terminology with that of the Commission, which would make things clearer all around.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Diamantopoulou, Mr Katiforis, well done on this initiative, well done on the content of this report. I believe that it comes at an important time. Whenever people try to take on board that ‘macro’ thinking of ours which we defend point by point, in particular in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, one thing that occasionally strikes them is the gap that sometimes exists – and which I am grateful for your having to some extent highlighted, Commissioner – between, on the one hand, the social model we claim to embody and, on the other hand, the standards we employ and the specific work we are involved in. If we are to talk about rating agencies and if we are to be delighted with our rapporteur’s initiative, it is because the market is blind and because, in this blindness, rating agencies have obtained, or are obtaining, an altogether essential decision-making power that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of enterprises and, therefore, of jobs. In view of this, I would like to make three remarks. The first is that what we say here cannot be seen as separate from the global debate on corporate governance. What type of corporate governance do we want for our social model in Europe? What division of roles between capital and labour do we want? What role should redistribution have? These are the questions that we should answer by way of the solutions that we envisage for the operation of these agencies in particular, but not only for these agencies. I remember the debates that we had on the issue of accounting standards, and we are seeing the wayward effects of the so-called autonomy of the IASB. I do not want the same thing to happen to us where rating agencies are concerned. My second remark is that if, in Europe, we want the improvement in the operation of rating agencies to contribute to protecting our social model, then we cannot leave aside the issue of corporate social responsibility. In this area too, agencies are now coming into being. They are European initiatives. I am thinking, in particular, of Mrs Nicole Notat’s agency in France, Vigeo. These are complementary developments that we should reflect upon. Finally, my third remark, Commissioner, is an expression of regret at not having heard your opinion on the amendment, proposed by our rapporteur and to be fully supported both by myself and my group, in favour of establishing European registering and regulatory agencies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Roth-Behrendt quoted from Shakespeare in her contribution and I would like to quote from Hamlet’s soliloquy: whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or by opposing end them. As chair of the US delegation here in this Parliament, I am only too well aware of the many slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that make up the trade disputes between the EU and the United States of America. But having said that, it is important to get each trade dispute in proportion. Every one of us would want to welcome the small indication of progress that comes after the meetings with Secretary of State Slater and Ambassador Morningstar. I say this knowing full well the massive pressures there are upon Congress in an election year. I do not want to be too critical, we know only too well as parliamentarians about electoral pressures, but it is worth saying that the pressures in the United States are not so much from the citizens, from the voters, but from the big business backers of both parties and both campaigns and that makes an enormous difference. The Commissioner and others have outlined the basis of possible discussions. I will not go through all those again, but just say that there is a need not only for a timetable to agree stringent noise standards but also to agree a timetable in which they should be implemented. Mrs Roth-Berendt has mentioned a target with which I will concur. I want to make one other brief point, because this dispute highlights the need for earlier and more forthright discussions about the many issues over which there are disagreements. The delegation for relations with the US is planning, as you probably know, a transatlantic legislators’ dialogue using video-conferencing techniques so that we can discuss and understand – and clearly the Americans need to understand – what the powers of this Parliament are, the positive powers and also the negative powers and also the importance of timing in our joint negotiations. We need to learn lessons on both sides but I very much hope that even at this late stage there can be some sort of resolution.

Political group: PSE