GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we have finally reached the discussion of Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s report in this House. It is an excellent report, which stems from her concern – shared by the overwhelming majority in Parliament – for the freedom of information and expression in the European Union. We would, of course, have preferred it if the Commission had put forward a specific proposal for a directive during these five years. The situation is indeed causing ever greater concern in all the countries in the Union as a result of massive concentrations of the media and increasingly blatant attempts by governments to steer, control and use the media in order to maintain and increase their own power. The dreadful example of Italy, however, concerns us most, both because of the damage it has done to freedom of information and because of the example it sets to other European countries. Europe cannot continue to remain silent about the scandal of a Prime Minister who owns the three private television networks, owns the largest company collecting television advertising revenue and controls the three public networks, at the head of which he places all his political sympathisers, and he even publicly announces the dismissal of journalists like Enzo Biagi and Michele Santoro, whom he considers undesirable. In a Europe that is becoming more and more neoliberalistic and antidemocratic, where the power of the media actively contributes to a single way of thinking, to wars and to the dismantling of the welfare state, we have to give a sign that we are changing direction or, at least, rethinking things. The Boogerd-Quaak report on the media is a step in this direction and will therefore gain the votes of our group, the Confederal Group of the .

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Böge’s report on measures to prevent TSE diseases is based on the proposals of the European Parliament’s temporary BSE Committee. Mr Böge was responsible for some invaluable work on this committee, and it is a relief to see that the job of monitoring the work of the BSE Committee in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has fallen to him: he is the one with the experience. I would have liked my speech to be part of a discussion that would have also treated the second part of the Commission’s proposal. I do not think it appropriate to have to conduct in part the same discussion when Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is featured in the plenary session. In the previous speech Mrs Schierhuber said that scrapies is an insidious disease. It is indeed. For me as a Finn, and a member who has been active in matters concerning agriculture and the health and transportation of animals, it is most important that those EU states where TSEs do not occur at all will in the future too be guaranteed the right to inspect as fully as is necessary the transportation of live animals. I wish to stress how important it is for us to remain free of disease. The possibility, if necessary, of having additional inspections of animals in these areas is not a question of artificial protectionism or the restriction of freedom of movement, as there really is justification for it. The inspections must be seen as being fair and cost-effective action to promote the wellbeing of animals and prevent increased expenditure for the EU. On behalf of the European Liberal Democrats, we can support the Commission’s proposal on Mr Böge’s report, but in the forthcoming debate on Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s report we must look again at the position of those countries where TSEs do not occur.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, like Mr Jarzembowski, I wish to refer to the transport issue. I read with concern in the conclusions to the Göteborg Summit in particular that the Commission is to proceed with its plans to propose a framework to ensure that 'by 2004 the price of using different modes of transport better reflects costs to society'. This clearly reflects the principle of infrastructure charging which has been promoted by the Commission since the publication in July 1998 of its White Paper on fair and efficient pricing in transport, subsequently approved in the Costa Neves report, which Parliament approved in January. These proposals are anything but fair and efficient, especially as far as road transport is concerned. The Commission's own research shows, for example, that the per kilometre cost of running a car in the UK under infrastructure charging would increase by 97% by 2005. Surely we have learned some lessons from the fuel price protests which brought many Member States to a standstill last autumn. Road users are already being forced to pay through the nose to subsidise other forms of transport, in particular the United Kingdom, and the Commission's proposals will only aggravate this. Despite several years of study and consultation, even the so-called 'experts' within this field admit that the science involved in so-called social marginal costing – the process by which these charges are set – is untested and uncertain. Charging people off the road will not encourage the general public to change their travel habits, it will merely provoke widespread dissent and anger. The road user should not be the target of a witch hunt. Member States should be free to set their own tax regimes and decide their own priorities for infrastructure charging and improvements. I urge every Member of this Parliament to acknowledge the horrendous impact this would have and encourage them to join me in opposing any such proposals every step of the way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Coelho warmly on his sterling report and thank him in turn, on behalf of my group, for the sound cooperation. What should really have been an annual debate on the implementation of the Schengen cooperation is today being afforded added topical value in the light of the Council of Ministers for Justice and for the Interior debating European measures to combat international terrorism. Nobody will deny that Schengen could play a role in this. I shudder at the thought that appeals such as those during yesterday’s sitting could be made by the Right, to put a definitive stop to the free movement of people and to put Big Brother-like mechanisms into place. The Schengen discussion in my group has always sought to strike the necessary but difficult balance between the right to free movement of people, respect for the principles of the rule of law and human rights and the right to safety via police and judicial cooperation, and I should like to keep it that way. However, despite the fact that Schengen has now been in existence for six years as a predecessor to the area of freedom, security and justice, we have to observe on the basis of Mr Coelho’s report that many aspects leave a great deal to be desired. I should like to list three. Firstly, although Schengen exists, we have to observe that there is still no effective police cooperation and no effective exchange of intelligence which could yield major results in the fight against organised crime. In fact, the annual report states that there is a marked improvement, but the question is whether the right areas are being prioritised. To put it bluntly, is the Schengen intelligence system being put to actual use in the fight against international crime and terrorism, as defined in the UN Convention? Does it not mainly serve as an intelligence system to combat unwanted migration? Please allow me to put this question to you again in today’s climate. Secondly, Schengen does, however, appear to be used in the framework of demonstrations on the occasion of European and international summits. No Democrat will object to the fact that trouble-makers who come to cause havoc are arrested. But the way in which peaceful protesters are being arrested via internal border controls and the exchange of intelligence on the basis of the Schengen Information System is really a bridge too far for anyone who is in favour of freedom of expression. Thirdly, police cooperation and the exchange of intelligence require proper monitoring by the legal systems and parliaments. That is where Schengen really takes things too far. It even goes so far that the Council has decided not to publish any more reports, since Schengen now supposedly forms part of the European acquis, as if Schengen ceases to exist as a result. In any event, my group would like to see Schengen in fact replaced by transparent, democratically controlled European rules but, in anticipation of this, we want the European Parliament, in tandem with national parliaments, to monitor Schengen.

Political group: PSE
I supported Amendments Nos 14 and 179 of the above report. Although the report does not concern the public's right of access to the institutions' documents, the Commission text seems to introduce a new and ill-defined exception to access to documents, namely 'interests of the Union', which could negatively affect the Parliament's right to documents. I believe that the Commission's proposal, in the parts which Amendments 14 and 179 seek to amend, is in conflict with the recently adopted regulation on Article 255 (Public access to documents). This regulation states that 'All rules concerning access to documents of the institutions should be in conformity' with the recently adopted regulation (Recital 12).

Political group: PSE
Madam President, when I was speaking on this report I got the numbers of the amendments which I wanted to be put to the vote wrong. The numbers of the amendments which I recommend should be put to the vote are Nos 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22. These are the numbers in the documents for the sitting. (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Watson Report (A5-0273/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to congratulate the Commissioner on the progress he has made on the rapid reaction unit. I should like to ask the Commissioner a couple of questions. Firstly, although I recognise that he wants to keep the budget small and use existing instruments, is he satisfied that the budget in category 4 is sufficient for the special rapid reaction unit to be able to carry out its objectives over the course of a financial year? Secondly, concerning coordination: what will the relationship be between this unit and the European Union special envoys? One of the problems we had with Kosovo was not just coordination within the Commission but also coordination among the Member States of the actions they took as individual governments. What relationship will you be able to have with Member States in order to ensure coordination of their independent activities?

Political group: PSE
Mr Moscovici, Commissioner Patten, I also would like to be associated with the words of welcome to our honoured guests, Mr Ahmed Qurie and Mr Avraham Burg. It is understandable that Palestinians feel that right would have been on their side in formerly declaring an independent Palestinian state on 13 September. They believe that the Oslo negotiations and the various Camp David discussions would have conferred legitimacy on such a step. However, it has to be recognised that even if negotiations had progressed so far that the declaration of statehood was non-controversial, the future of Jerusalem was always going to re-ignite controversy once again. Jerusalem is the key issue and it needs to be looked at in a new light. It is a unique problem which requires a unique response. Jerusalem should not be regarded as an Arab city or a Jewish city, a Christian city or a Muslim city. Progress will only be made if it is agreed that it is a truly international city to which all traditions have a valid claim. The governance of this historic city must be removed from any nationalistic or sectarian, in the best sense of that word, spirit and this governance must provide for equal access and rule for all. Just as we were delighted to remove Berlin walls in Europe, we do not want to see similar walls erected in Jerusalem. People from the furthest ends of the Earth have an affinity with Jerusalem and this must be recognised and honoured and not overlooked in the current negotiations. With these few words, I would like to wish the discussions, if they do take place, all success and genuinely hope that they lay the basis for permanent peace in the Middle East.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Langen’s report deals with numerous issues but, nevertheless, here the speakers are naturally focusing on the issue of whether or not to have an extension of subsidies and on the unfair competition on the part of Korea. Those of us who live in a region such as Asturias, which has suffered four significant cases of restructuring – in mining, in steel, in shipbuilding and in weapons manufacturing – believe that cutting these subsidies, even until May to see whether Korea is condemned by the World Trade Organisation, is very dangerous for the sector. It is true that Europe is suffering from unfair competition because in Korea, above all, very low salaries are paid and workers are forced to endure abysmal working conditions and, under these circumstances, European workers have no way of competing with them. However, the Commission’s proposal, which includes aid for research and development, the condemnation of what is happening in Korea to the World Trade Organisation – since they are working with prices which are even below cost – and the possibility that there be transitional aid measures until the case is settled, seems to us to be perhaps a rather weak solution, but at least it is a solution. In any event, it seems to me, Mr President, that if we cut off subsidies and if the unfair Korean competition continues, the European shipbuilding industry will be fatally wounded. And I do not believe that we are exaggerating because the different workers’ groups have been claiming that over recent years thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost as a result of the restructuring of the shipbuilding industry. I believe that there are various countries such as Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece and Portugal which, within the Council, and despite the final decision, have asked that aid be continued, and we feel that this aid should be continued in one way or another if we do not wish, once again, to lose thousands of jobs in shipbuilding.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too should like to thank the rapporteurs very much for all of their preparatory work. In my opinion, the debate or discussion about these directives and regulations has been a good example of how together we can get to grips with a complicated issue at least enough to know where we concur and where our views differ. Incidentally, I should like to recall that at the end of the eighties, when the Commission published its White Paper on the internal market, energy was not even mentioned, which shows that we are dealing with an extremely complicated matter here. At the time there were many who said, hands off, that is far too complicated, we in the electricity and gas industry understand this much better, let us deal with it. We chose another route and I believe that competition is indeed the right way forward. I am also in favour of our establishing unrestricted competition. Incidentally, if we did not do this, in the end the European Court of Justice would probably force us to change the way we do certain things, for example to recognise that the customer is the domestic customer and not a customer defined by us. You see the Treaty always carries more weight than any Parliament resolution. I should, however, also like to advocate that we not only deregulate, but also regulate. What we are doing here is actually regulated deregulation, if I am allowed to say that. But that is precisely what it is. We are not only opening up the market in gas and electricity, we are also setting the conditions – the environmental and social conditions – under which this will take place, or we are leaving it up to the Member States to do so by enacting their own regulations. I believe that these are two sides of the same coin. This is perhaps where we differ, Mr van Velzen, in our assessment of these directives. Neither do I regard this as complicating the process; I think it is part of it. We need a market and we need regulated competition, but energy is also something to which the public has a right. Security of supply must be established and the environmental conditions must be set. This is an integral part of this directive. The opening up of the energy markets is also a fundamental prerequisite for the functioning of the Kyoto Protocol. Without competition and without an open market, we will not be able to have emissions trading in Europe. This is part of the Kyoto Protocol, which, after all, almost all of us wish to ratify.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner Wallström, we are indeed using more batteries, and that is causing us problems. Firstly, we want to make batteries environmentally friendly to use, and secondly we do not want them to make our waste problem worse than it is. This in fact means that we need a strategy that ensures that as few batteries as possible are landfilled, and secondly we must see to it that innovations are made in battery production. I therefore also support the Commission’s approach of including all batteries in the legislation and of ensuring there is producer responsibility in battery production. I also agree with the many compromises we have reached together with the aim of making the collection and recycling of batteries better organised so that our waste problem will actually be reduced. There are a variety of opinions in the House about how to encourage innovation and avoid heavy metals. The important thing is that we send the signal that we want batteries that do not harm the environment, do not contain heavy metals and are easy to recycle. Parliament must send this signal clearly so that the battery industry will innovate. That can of course also be done using various deposit schemes, with a higher deposit charged on hazardous battery systems than on the others. In the end, however, the consumer must also play his part.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion there is still a great need for information about eastward enlargement in the EU Member States. At least, that is what I find when meeting citizens at events in my constituency. Today I would like to speak in particular about the challenge of agriculture and eastward enlargement. I would like to congratulate Mr Olsson on his very good report on EU enlargement and agriculture. How can the new Member States be successfully integrated into the common agricultural policy? That is a key question for most of the candidate countries and it is crucial because in the countries of central and eastern Europe agriculture accounts for a larger proportion of national income than the EU average. The same is true of employment in the economy as a whole. The accession of ten countries in 2004 will increase the agricultural area by 29% and the number of agricultural holdings by 74%. But the number of consumers will increase by 24%. How can we best shape accession and integration in the long term? In my opinion, the countries of central and eastern Europe will and must press ahead with changing the structure of their agriculture. The European agricultural model where farmers have the twin tasks of producing in some places and caring for the countryside in others must be applied in those countries too. In my view, the high standards of hygiene in production and processing must apply from the first day of accession, otherwise European consumer policy will become a farce. Environmental concerns and alternative jobs in rural areas must be funded from the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. We agree that the Commission is taking the right approach there in aligning financial compensation payments gradually. If we allowed too much money in at the start, agricultural structures there would be ossified, and that cannot be the right way for those concerned either. While I believe our citizens do not know enough about eastern Europe, I also noted during the hearing that farmers in the candidate countries, too, still have a lot of public relations work to do at home. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to remind you that the outermost regions of the EU are located in areas where the inhabitants live in the shadow of cyclones from the Caribbean and violent storms coming in from the oceans, and for this reason we should not be surprised that some natural disasters will take place in these areas from time to time, such as the one which occurred recently in Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where, fortunately, some of us who are Members of Parliament happen to live. Unfortunately, on 31 March, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, one of the capitals of the Canary Islands, which is an outermost region of the European Union and an Objective 1 region, some of whose works are being carried out under the Urban initiative – as has just been pointed out – suffered a natural disaster on a huge scale. In only two hours, heavy rainfall of more than 200 litres/m2 flooded the capital. Thousands of citizens, hundreds of homes and business premises, thousands of vehicles and a large proportion of public infrastructure were affected by the devastating consequences of this storm. The saddest fact, however, is that eight people died as a direct result. In addition to this tragic human loss there was a huge amount of material loss, estimated at more than EUR 100 million. For this reason, a public campaign was launched to repair the damage caused and to make Santa Cruz de Tenerife a town fit for habitation once more. Fortunately, Santa Cruz is recovering, thanks to solidarity and to collective efforts, and trusts in the official support of the public authorities of the Canary Islands. However, we think that the Commission should adopt a series of measures in cooperation with the aforementioned authorities to make an exceptional contribution to alleviate the damage caused and, in this way, the citizens of the Canary Islands can feel that European institutions are close to them at this time of need. This also applies to similar occurrences that have happened in the Autonomous Community of Valencia.

Political group: ELDR
I believe that the decisions taken at Tampere neither meet expectations nor address the extent of the problems. First point: If an “area of freedom, security and justice” is to implemented, the decision-making and supervisory powers of the European Parliament need to be strengthened. Second point: There are no specific policies on cooperation with poorer countries to enable them to address the structural and short-term causes of migration flows. Third point: The right of asylum should be extended to cover victims of non-governmental agents and sexual violence in order to apply and promote the principles of the Geneva Convention. Fourth point: The “minimum conditions of reception of asylum seekers” should include appropriate means to help asylum seekers live respectably whilst they are seeking employment. Fifth point: There should be more fundamental cooperation with the United Nations High Commission. Sixth point: Third country nationals should receive equal treatment, including the right to vote in local and European elections. Seventh point: The situation of the large number of people “without papers” needs to be regulated. Eighth point: The “Eurodac” system of finger printing asylum seekers is unacceptable as a matter of principle.

Political group: GUE-NGL