GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur as well and to ask how far we can trust the Council. It is nothing personal. This is one of the very few proposals I can recall which has come with a price tag attached. It is true that it is printed on page 112 of the original proposals. It does not appear on the Internet version any longer, but it was there on the version that was originally submitted to Parliament. This shows us the actual cost of implementing the proposed directive on national emission ceilings. It was news to the Belgian members of my committee that this proposal would cost them EUR 1 000 million a year. We showed it to the Belgian members and they did not like the look of that at all. Can the Commissioner state whether the cost of what is being proposed has been discussed in the Council and what, for example, the Belgians have said about it? What about the French, for whom this measure will cost an additional EUR 916 million a year? What about the Greeks? According to the Commission's estimate, this will cost them an additional EUR 338 million a year. So how far are they actually willing to pay the cost? Mrs Müller has addressed this problem. In her Amendments Nos 1 and 6 she rejects the word 'broadly' and says that the Member States must actually agree to remain 'exactly' within the emission ceilings. If Parliament accepts that, we have an even greater right to ask how far the Member States will actually agree to abide by these proposals. When the Commissioner comes to reply, could she perhaps say something on Amendment No 8? Does subsidiarity apply here or not? If it does not apply, then presumably we have to await proposals from the European Commission. If so, since the instruments cannot be taxes, which would not be agreed, what will they be?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to congratulate the general rapporteur, Mr Mulder, and the rapporteur, Mrs Gill, on the excellent work they have done. I am convinced that the 2004 budget is going to contribute to the success of the Union’s most crucial enlargement and, despite what we have heard here this afternoon, I also maintain the hope – because that is the last thing we lose – that in terms of the budget we will reconcile the profound differences we have suffered in relation to the action in Iraq. I would like to say something on another fundamental issue, however: immigration. Immigration is no longer a national issue, and has become a European issue, including the most dramatic aspects of it. It is essential to dedicate more resources to this political priority. We need to improve border control, combat illegal immigration effectively, which leaves victims on our coasts almost every day, and we need countries of origin and transit to manage migratory flows effectively while respecting human rights. We therefore unreservedly support the increase in resources for programmes such as ARGO and we welcome the new programme of financial and technical aid to third countries in this field. Madam President, I believe it is very appropriate in this debate to stress, as other Members have done, that the 2004 budget creates a line intended to introduce elements of European solidarity into assistance for the victims of terrorism. This pilot project recognises in a special manner this group of European citizens and sends the political message that the Union is listening to them and is showing solidarity from a budgetary point of view as well. Finally, Madam President, the draft 2004 budget takes the Council's traditional approach of austerity and expenditure control. We agree that this budgetary policy must contribute to healthy and stable growth. Only if we are rigorous, if we opt for quality spending and the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises, will we reduce the gap between us and our most direct competitor, the United States.

Political group: PPE-DE
The WTO Millennium Round is an opportunity to manage the process of globalisation. Globalisation must be managed in such a way that global challenges are translated into global progress. Specific actions are needed in favour of developing countries, in particular the least developed countries, using partnerships to reduce inequalities between rich and poor countries. Increased coherence between trade, labour, environmental, animal welfare and other internationally accepted regulations and principles of 'corporate governance' through improved cooperation between the WTO, the ILO, the United Nations, the Multilateral Environment Agreements and other international institutions must be mandatory. I therefore support the view that the Round be concluded as a single undertaking with results being considered globally. I would prefer no agreement to an unfair agreement.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we have taken another two steps forward in the financial services action plan, and fortunately not one step back. I am talking mainly about the Transparency Directive and the criticism concerning mandatory quarterly reporting. Whilst I can settle for the compromise that is now before us, what I do regret is that reports are not subject to more requirements in terms of content. I have made three proposals to that effect. The first had to do with the provision of information about management salaries and bonuses in annual reports. The Commission has meanwhile announced that it intends to table a separate proposal on this, so that was a successful action. The second was about the reporting of payments to governments, specifically by extractive industries. This was the wish of NGOs – like the publish-what-you-pay-campaign – as well as the well-intentioned elements among those companies themselves. These companies are happy to abide by an obligation and, as a consequence, competitors that do not yet report these payments or bribes on a voluntary basis would no longer be able to engage in unfair competition. A recommendation to that effect has now been included in a recital to the directive. That is a partial success that deserves to be followed up. The third point was the reporting, in a verifiable and readily understood format, of what companies claim to do by way of socially responsible business management. Unfortunately, this point has not yet been included in the text, but I would nevertheless like to bring it to your attention once again. This is not, therefore, about forcing companies to do business in a socially responsible manner, but the moment a company boasts about all the good things it does, that should appear transparently and clearly in a verified report, as happens with financial conduct. I am reasonably satisfied with the ISD Directive. From the outset, I have attempted to build a bridge between the opposing views and interests, and have used my own touchstone in the process. In-house matching by large banks, which breaks the monopoly of the stock exchange, is, from my vantage point, positive and can, under the conditions that we are now stipulating in the compromise, offer additional opportunities for investors and for entrepreneurs who need capital. The compromise has become neither a purely English City directive nor a stock exchange directive, which, on account of the theoretical abolition of the concentration rule would nevertheless lead to a de facto monopoly of the stock exchange. This middle way has resulted in the proposals I tabled at first reading being adopted. I think that with regard to supervision, additional provisions by the Council have been included, which I also welcome. In that respect too, therefore, this directive has been given the green light.

Political group: PSE
Society cannot survive without businesses which produce goods and provide services. However, that should not lead us to overlook the fact that businesses can also form a threat to society. They want as low taxes as possible, as little worker participation as possible and as few rules as possible to protect against environmental pollution and animal torture. Large businesses, in particular, are out to make the highest possible profits for the owners and also often to secure the highest possible share options for management. In many cases, the pursuit of profits clashes with the pursuit of the healthiest possible living environment, the prevention of work-related illnesses, a safe working environment, democratic decision-making and the desirability of sufficient financial means to pay for public services. That is why it is necessary to arrange for as much openness as possible, so that society as a whole can co-determine the actions of businesses. Moreover, businesses which infringe rules should not under any circumstance receive contributions from European funds. - Menrad report (A5-0282/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The meeting in Biarritz was typified by very strange happenings. It therefore comes as no surprise that governments clashed on essential issues. After all, they are now discussing the redistribution of power in Europe, but especially at this stage, it is vital to have a sound presidency that seeks consensus. Unfortunately, France acted more as a spokesperson for its own interests and for those of the large countries than for proposals which could bridge those contradictions, even if Mr Moscovici is now trying to convince us that the opposite is true. If the French Presidency carries on like this, the IGC will fall flat on its face on Nice’s hard pebble beach. It is of major importance for each Member State to continue to be represented in the Commission. A hierarchy becomes inevitable, as this is also what tends to happen in national governments. Even once the present candidate countries have joined, each Member State must be able to retain one junior or senior Commissioner. It is highly suspicious that the large Member States, which are behind intergovernmental cooperation, would argue in favour of a small Commission in which they themselves would not always be represented. A rotation system of this kind would lead to a serious weakening of the Commission’s position and that is exactly what we want to avoid. If the large Member States ask for the votes in the Council to be redistributed to a certain degree, then that is a reasonable request, but if they over-react, they will antagonise the small countries. In addition, majority decision-making goes, by definition, hand in hand with codecision; it is totally unacceptable to us to separate the two. Reinforced cooperation works very well with a minimum of eight Member States. For foreign and security policy, we could possibly do with fewer. It is difficult but certainly not impossible to reach agreement in Nice. But the French Presidency should not act as strangely as it did in “Bizarritz”.

Political group: ELDR
Trying to put the principles of environmental sustainability into practice is no easy task. The Council is actually inventing the wheel. The impression that many of us have is that the discussions are taking place behind closed doors. I wonder whether the presidency is trying to open the discussion up, increase the transparency of the process and perhaps involve other organisations such as NGOs in the development of strategies. I should like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council in particular what is being done to press for the working groups to identify specific medium-term objectives, clear targets and programmes of action, so that we have something to get our teeth into and have a demonstrable means of measuring progress and achievement?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, no one denies, Mr Duisenberg, that you and the European Central Bank are operating a very competent and successful monetary policy. Nevertheless, people’s concerns about the euro’s low exchange rate need to be taken far more seriously, because it is one of the root causes of inflationary trends and higher interest rates. However, the real and very fundamental criticisms I want to make relate to other areas. The report welcomes the improvement in the ECB’s information policy. Yet we are refused the information we really need – publication of the minutes of meetings – on the grounds of the ECB’s independence. But the ECB is not privately owned. It should be fully accountable to the people who own it, the citizens of the European Union. It is one of the European Union’s most powerful institutions and this complete surrender of policy and democracy to the ECB cannot continue. There is a second problem that worries me. (Heckling) Yes, and why not? There is a second problem that worries me. This narrowing of monetary and financial policy down to price stability is reflected in paragraph 9 of your report, Mr Radwan, where the rather revealing wording states that developments in labour markets and social security systems should support the ECB’s stability policy, rather than the reverse, which would be more appropriate in view of the dramatic problems in these fields. Lastly, I wish to raise a third question, which I will at least touch upon. There is not a word in the report about the unparalleled over-expansion of international speculative financial markets. In my view, this will result in inflationary trends in the medium term, and at present it is the cause of a totally unacceptable shift away from companies dependent on labour and real economic factors and towards speculative profit making. I hope that it will at last be possible to have a serious and essential debate with you about this trend and about instruments capable of influencing it, such as the Tobin Tax. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, firstly allow me to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mrs Karamanou and Mrs Klamt, and also in particular to congratulate the Commission on its proposal. For years this Parliament has wanted clear and common legislation for combating the trafficking and exploitation of human beings, which are odious and widespread crimes. We do not wish to be aware of it, but we only have to look at what is happening with prostitution in our countries to see what is going on. The European Commission’s proposal to define the crime in a common manner and harmonise penalties is truly a step forward in the direction proposed by the United Nations in its Palermo protocol, and I am pleased to accept it. However, having debated Mrs Gradin’s proposals in this House, which of course have been very useful to some others, such as the United States, which already have federal legislation to combat human trafficking, I must express my great concern at the Council’s attitude at its last meeting. There was no agreement on this proposal, whereas we saw remnants of legislation proposed by France, on the entry of people without documentation, go ahead, when it is clear that the trafficking and exploitation of human beings is one of the gravest of crimes. It is much more serious than the issue dealt with at the Council meeting. I do not understand it, and nor does anybody else, because no explanation has been given. I would like to ask, Mr President, whether tomorrow at the vote the Council will come to explain its position to us, what it intends to do, and whether it intends to introduce any amendments and, if so, which ones. Or, have we instead reached a point of such harmony between the institutions of this Union that, without my realising it, there is only one executive, the Commission, and only one legislative body, Parliament, and that the Council has no part to play.

Political group: PSE
The UK Conservative Delegation vote today reflected our considerable reservations about this report, and not just because of its mentions of the importance of tax co-ordination and the wonders of the single currency. One central task facing Member States is the full implementation of the Lisbon Council conclusions in terms of stimulating employment, essentially by boosting the competitiveness of their economies, their companies and their people. We strongly believe in social inclusion. Despite acceptance of some of our amendments, in our view this report implies that social inclusion generates full employment. We believe it is the other way round.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Commission proposals include the waiver of immunity of officials. Recently, the immunity of a former Commissioner was lifted and proceedings are currently pending before a judge in Brussels on the basis that Brussels is the seat of the Community institutions. Yet these institutions have other seats and, given that the Community’s actions affect the whole Community territory, there are in fact thousands of courts which could judge officials, Commissioners and so on. Is the Commission aware that, in order to lift immunity, it would be necessary to adopt a new legal instrument to regulate the procedure for holding Commission officials accountable, including former and current Commissioners?

Political group: PSE
Most of the countries worst affected by AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis are unable to produce the necessary treatments themselves. Forty-two million people are infected with AIDS in the world. Only 36 000 people are receiving treatment in Africa. Every day, 40 000 people die from infectious disease. The situation is therefore serious and urgent. In response to this situation, on 20 December last, the Northern countries gave in to the diktat by the United States which, in order to protect its pharmaceutical industry, vetoed the agreement on generic medicines. The European Union, however, wishing to protect its image, agreed to go back on the Doha acquis, by presenting highly restrictive definitions of the diseases in question and the countries concerned and allowing the establishment of a right for the WHO to assess the conduct of countries in this matter. Hundreds of thousands of human lives are at risk. The European Commission has chosen to give the profits of the pharmaceutical industries precedence over life. Together with my group, I support the many NGOs that are asking for matters relating to public health to fall outside the scope of the WHO.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, my group supports the report by Mr Perry. The EU Treaties acknowledge that it may be necessary to subject European matters to parliamentary scrutiny. In so doing, it is not the intention to call into question the work of the Commission in monitoring the proper application of EU law by the Member States. Sometimes, however, the Commission does not want to tread on the toes of the governments of some Member States. What worries me, however, is that I sometimes have the same feeling about our own Parliament, for example in connection with the Prestige. Why should we give up our right to expose incorrect application of EU law by authorities and governments of Member States? Reading the report about the Lloyd’s Petitions left me, in the first place, with the impression that matters remain which require further clarification. In the second place, it seems to me that neither the government of the United Kingdom nor the European Commission wants to go into this in more detail, although you have made an overture. We are curious. In the third place, some fellow Members seem more keen on protecting their own governments than adopting a responsible attitude towards citizens and demonstrating that the law is the same for everyone.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to say a few words concerning the excellent report by Mr Staes. Firstly, I would, however, like to direct my comments at you, as a member of the Bureau of Parliament. It was a disgrace to this House that we had to tolerate such a bureaucratic administrative hold-up over the question as to whether or not we can send the rapporteur of Parliament‘s Committee on Budgetary Control to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that for the sake of those whom we are supposed to represent here, there will be no repeat performance. I make no bones about the fact, because this is something we – myself included – normally criticise the Commission for. This time, I am sorry to say, we are forced to acknowledge that the problem lies with us, which is insupportable. Secondly, this report by Mr Staes raises our hopes in two respects. Firstly, the Commission is receptive to new ideas. A most welcome development has taken place between the first visits under the leadership of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control, and the status quo as ascertained by our rapporteur, and I can only congratulate the Commission on this. At the start of this programme for the Balkans, aid was granted in the typical EU manner, i.e. the decision was taken around the green table in Brussels and private firms were then commissioned to determine the aid requirement at local level, and to divide and distribute the funds. This method has been abolished and the system almost revolutionised – partly under pressure from this House. It shows that our initiatives are valuable and that the Commission is receptive to new ideas. Commissioner, perhaps you could even use this receptiveness to new ideas, which you displayed in the delegation in Sarajevo, as an example for other delegations in other countries to follow.

Political group: PSE
Thank you for the information, Mr President, and thank you for giving me the floor. Many of us believe that the problems in Colombia, as in other Latin American countries, stem from the issue of whether or not peasant-farmers own land. In 1984, 0.2% of landowners in Colombia owned 32% of the land. In 1997, this figure stood at 45%, and today will be even higher. This is the problem, in addition, in many cases, to the actions of the paramilitaries, who force the peasant-farmers to move by means of indiscriminate killings. Here we have three cases in different parts of the country: In the village of Carmen, 500 people were forced to move by the murder of 14 peasant-farmers. In the port of Buenaventura, 20 peasant-farmers were murdered. Far away, in another area called Ciénaga, there have been over 200 murders since the paramilitaries moved in a year ago. The question, Mr President, and I shall end here, is whether there is a solution that would exert greater pressure than that proposed by the President in his statement and whether the aid we are going to give will be entirely different from that of the United States, in other words, not intended for crop-spraying, but for crop replacement and also for social, rather than military, purposes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, nobody can say that any form of dialogue, macroeconomic dialogue in particular, is useless. But come now! Let us not present this as an institutional reform or as a significant step forward in the evolution of the European Union. What kind of dialogue is this? A confidential and secret dialogue? A dialogue with no flexibility, silent witnesses and no freedom of speech? And whom will this dialogue affect exactly? The European Central Bank which is not accountable to anybody? Governments which, or at least most of which, cleave to trade unions and the automatic guiding of the EMU, which will effectively function as a mechanism which embodies and by-passes collective bargaining? In my view, this is making us regress; it is a return to the Privy Councils of pre-Cromwell days when there were no records of proceedings and the people knew nothing. From this point of view, I would like to congratulate Parliament for not participating. In my opinion, in refusing to take part in such short-lived institutional fabrications, the European Parliament, which is a vehicle for openness and transparency, is showing dignity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I agree with the Commission that it is not its job to fix prices. However, it is its job to ensure there is proper competition in the EU market. It is not true to say that the banks are operating a price ring and deliberately keeping the prices high because with globalisation there are fewer and fewer banks, which means less and less competition. What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that the banks are not applying anti-competitive prices as a way of keeping their bank charges so high?

Political group: PSE