GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Annex II, Conduct of Question Time under Rule 43, part B (3) states that the time limit of 30 seconds should not be exceeded. I have now suffered because my question was No 36, a very important question dealing with people in my constituency, and I feel that people should keep to the timescale. It is unfair! This was my first time to speak in this Chamber and I have now lost that opportunity.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to make it clear to my fellow MEPs that, if Amendment No 9, tabled by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, is adopted, the issue will be sent back to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. That will be the correct method of proceeding, for it will give us more time to investigate the legal consequences of this proposal. I received an answer from the Council yesterday, stating that it did not want to express an opinion on the proposal’s legal validity as long as the proposal was being debated in the Council. I simply believe it would be wrong for us to proceed to a vote here in Parliament before such a legal evaluation has been made available to us. I find the Council’s answer totally unacceptable. I would ask my fellow MEPs to support Amendment No 9 so that we can obtain a new reading in the committee. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my first report as an MEP was on precisely the same topic as that which we are discussing here today: the environment and the Structural Funds. And, of course, I came to the basic conclusion that projects financed by the Structural Funds should not, under any circumstances, damage the environment of the Member States and, to that end, greater consideration should be given to the environmental dimension at all levels when programming and implementing the relevant Union policies. I still believe this today; our main objective must always be sustainable development, i.e. development which respects and promotes the environment. Therefore, Parliament should take this line and call on the Commission, in its vote, to implement the Structural Fund programmes in a way which takes account of Community environmental legislation, particularly with regard to directives on the preservation of natural habitats and wild birds. At the same time, however, we should avoid over-reacting. We should not suspend all the programmes or refuse to approve any of them just because we cannot guarantee that the odd regulation will be upheld. This reminds me of a Greek proverb: you cannot chop off your head just because you have tooth ache. I am not suggesting that we contravene legislation. Rather, I am suggesting that we go ahead and implement the programmes and, at the same time, monitor the implementation of legislation and ensure that the Commission keeps Parliament informed. It is important to remember that very important measures and projects are financed under the Structural Funds in the most problematic countries and regions of the Union, countries and regions which desperately need help in their endeavours to develop and converge with the more developed Member States. We should also bear in mind, Mr President, that measures promoting the environment are often financed by the Structural Funds. If we were to suspend all the programmes without exception for the reason given by a number of speakers here, we would be doing our environment more harm than good.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, after almost 25 years in this Parliament I am standing down at the elections. This may well be my last speech in the Chamber. As a former mining engineer, energy policy has been one of my prime interests, so I am happy to be making my swan-song on an energy subject. I hope that Parliament will strongly support this proposal because it will play an important role in the completion of the internal energy market. Its purpose is to ensure fair access to networks for all market players and a genuinely competitive market for traded gas in the EU. The third-party access guidelines in the Annex have been agreed by Member States, regulators, TSOs and system users. It is therefore appropriate that the text of the regulation agreed in committee should be as close as possible to the guidelines agreed at the Madrid Forum. Consultation with all actors in the industry is vital if the regulation is to be effective. That is why they must all be consulted on the establishment of further guidelines. National regulators will have a vital role to play in enforcing the guidelines at Member State level, as envisaged by the Gas Directive. This proposed gas regulation deals with similar issues to the electricity regulation agreed by the Council and Parliament last year. It is appropriate that the same institutional arrangements and procedures should apply. I very much urge the House to approve this measure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Patrie for her excellent report on this Commission communication on the complex subject of the precautionary principle. There is a crisis of public confidence in science, which is now recognised as not being infallible, and there is also a crisis of public confidence in political decision-makers, who are suspected of connivance with certain industrial and commercial pressure groups or simply of culpable irresponsibility. We must ensure that this report echoes public demands for a high level of protection for health and the environment. Essentially, use of the precautionary principle can be seen as a risk management strategy in the face of scientific uncertainty or a tool to allow the involvement of the public decision-making authority in managing scientific uncertainty. Scientists evaluate the risk and the political decision-makers manage the risk. Clarifying who should do what is an essential prerequisite for restoring the necessary public confidence in both the scientific community and public decision-makers – us politicians. There is a legitimate role also for peer-reviewed minority scientific opinions. After all, let us remind ourselves that BSE was brought to public attention through a minority report. There is a legitimate concern felt by public opinion which has become extremely sensitive to such matters as a result of the recent food scandals and particularly the BSE crisis. The public no longer wants to bear the brunt of hazardous technological innovations which several or many years later prove to have entailed unnecessary risk to public health or the environment. They will not accept that there should be any doubt whatsoever but that the materials used to make their children's toys are completely harmless, for example. As long ago as 1996 the European Parliament came out in favour of a ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal throughout the European Union in accordance with the precautionary principle – if only. The rest is history. The way to restore consumers' confidence in industry generally is to adopt clear and precise rules in the light of the precautionary principle. In all cases measures must be taken, must be regularly reviewed in the light of scientific developments. There should be an absolute requirement for transparency in all cases involving regular provision of information to the public, including when a project or activity has been given the green light. We need to see clearer guidelines on the application of the principle. It should be used where there are reasonable grounds for concern. Precaution does not equal prevention, nor should the precautionary principle be invoked as a technical trade barrier.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, you, Mr President of the Commission, have proposed increased stability and security as a priority for your programme, and that is only to be welcomed. Among other things in relation to this, you propose taking steps towards the establishment of joint border control. For that you have our entire support. In so doing, you will ultimately be acceding to our demands, for we have always wanted the same high standards to apply on all our external borders after enlargement, and precautions need to be taken for that to be the case. Last week, at a press conference, you again suggested establishing, at the very outset, an agency to take over the work of control and coordination. This would be the sixteenth agency, and what we have learned so far about agencies can be summed up by saying that we have forgotten the names of many of them, we have forgotten what they do, and that we are most aware of them at the time of the Budget, when we notice – generally after they have been in existence for only a few years – that the outgoings are mushrooming. All that comes into my mind is that we should propose setting up an agency to examine the other agencies’ efficiency and consider whether we need any more of them. (Applause) What we would like is for the means of control and coordination to be set up within the Commission or in close association with it, for the sake of efficient external borders control. We need control, we need coordination, we need the efficient use of resources, but under no circumstances do we have any need of an agency. My second point is that you say that there must be tough action taken against illegal immigrants and something done to integrate those who are here legally. In that you have our full support, but please take action once and for all; see to it that return agreements are in place, not just with Macao or Hong Kong, but with the states from which migrants actually come. There is one thing you must not do, and that is, to offer the abolition of visas as a quid pro quo; instead, provide something that will be more help, namely trade facilities and economic aid, so that emigration ceases to be necessary.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the communication from the Commission, which underlines the fact that air transport is rapidly having an increasing impact on the environment at local, regional and global level. Clearly we cannot allow this trend to continue and must rapidly adopt measures to reverse it. What is at stake, indeed, is the protection of the environment, the quality of life and the health of Europeans. We could make serious progress if we implemented the Commission’s proposal to apply the principle of ‘reward the best and punish the worst’ to air transport in Europe, drawing a clearer line of demarcation between the various activities on the basis of their quality in environmental terms. Although the Commission’s communication describes a number of possible instruments, such as economic incentives and more stringent standards, it does not set out any measurable objectives or timetables. Nor are there enough practical measures to encourage aviation to pay more respect to the environment. So it is essential to set objectives and to respect timetables, so that the aviation industry, the airlines and the users can adapt to the legislative measures in good time. That is the exercise on which the European Parliament has embarked. Its report tackles several of the problems caused by air transport. In particular, it looks at the problem of noise, which is an increasing source of concern to the people of Europe. According to a study conducted under the EU’s fifth environmental action programme, 80 million people in Europe are exposed to noise levels that scientists regard as intolerable, while another 170 million are exposed to disturbing noise levels. Recent studies also show that there is a link between aircraft noise and sleep disturbance, health and learning ability. People who live close to airports are particularly affected by the noise of night flights. The ICAO has initiated a process of revising noise levels. The European Union must support that process and, if necessary, the Commission will have to take additional measures if the ICAO does not reach a satisfactory agreement. There are two ways to reduce aircraft noise: at source, thanks to more stringent certification standards and plans for phasing out aircraft that do not comply with them, and by land-use planning measures near airports. Then there is the problem of gas emissions. It has been admitted that emissions from aviation account for about 3.5% of the global warming produced by human activity. According to forecasts, these emissions will rise by 3% a year over the period 1992 to 2015. So it is both urgent and vital to take measures to reduce aircraft emissions. The list of pollutants from air transport is a long one. This alarming fact should encourage us to take measures very quickly. That means the Member States must give the Commission a clear negotiating mandate so that at the time of the 33rd session of the ICAO Assembly in 2001, it can vigorously pursue the environmental and transport policy objectives.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I rise to speak for two basic reasons. Firstly, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Soares, on his excellent report, with which he honours this Parliament, and to highlight three points made in this report: firstly, the need for Europe to remain vigilant over the autonomy and specific character of the Special Administrative Region of Macau; secondly, the need for the European Union to maintain a physical presence there through a representative; and thirdly, the need for closer relations and dialogue with that territory, as Mr Soares made very clear. As for my second reason, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my speech is intended to mark an important point in the debate on this report, because in addition to being a long-standing member of this House, the rapporteur is a former President of one of the Member States of the European Union with a history that honours us all, not only the members of his party or his compatriots, but all Europeans. This report, which bears his stamp and his signature, increases the credibility of the European Parliament. It is worth highlighting that it is not only the contribution he has made in this document but also the active and resolute way in which he has always fought and continues to fight in this House to defend the highest values of the European project itself.

Political group: PSE
One of the problems that is fundamental but all too often neglected by scientific research in Europe is that of the flagrant under-representation of women. This is not only a problem of equality and justice – it is also a problem relating to the effectiveness of European research, which therefore demonstrates that the EU is still far from able to harness its potential in human resources. That is why, in the light of the objective that the Union set itself in Lisbon to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, it is particularly important to vote in favour of this report, which gives the issue of women in research the attention that it deserves. It is basically a question of supporting the efforts made within the framework of the European research policy, such as the prominence given to ‘Women and Science’ as part of the specific programme entitled ‘Structuring the European Research Area’. We also note that there is a great deal of work still to be done, such as integrating a gender perspective into all levels of future framework programmes and continuing to compile and disseminate statistics on the participation of men and women. More generally speaking, the report also raises the issue of how to achieve better reconciliation between one’s career and family life, to the benefit of children as well as working men and women, through the establishment in each Member State of crèche and nursery facilities, for example. - van Hulten report (A5-0409/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the has already voiced our objections to the neo-liberal intentions of Mr Prodi’s proposed team. These objections relate in particular to the Dutch candidate Mr Bolkestein, for he is the most outspoken proponent of policies for effecting cutbacks, privatisation, deregulation and the lowering of taxation. A few months back, during the election campaign for this Parliament, the people heading the list of candidates of almost all the Dutch parties were quite vocal in saying that Mr Bolkestein should not be permitted to become a Member of the Commission. His attitudes were often provocative, which led to him being labelled a euro-sceptic. I do not actually think that he has ever been one. It is true that he is keen for the Netherlands to be a tax haven for large companies and high incomes and he does not want the European Union to hinder him in this. That is why he certainly would not be the right person to take on the taxation harmonisation portfolio. But now, the vast majority of Dutch MEPs have voted for a Commission of which Mr Bolkestein is a Member, thereby completely breaking their promise to the Dutch electorate. My party, the Socialist party in the Netherlands, does not go along with this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency's desire to make a particular mark and send a signal of solidarity and political rapprochement by holding the Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid is something to be welcomed. It ties in with Spain's unique involvement in Latin America, which results not only from its history but also from major economic interests. When Latin America sneezes, Spain catches a cold, or so I read recently. There is of course a good deal more underlying this summit. Linking the two continents is, as President Prodi has put it, a matter of European concern. There is of course far too little public attention paid in Europe to the political upheavals and economic crises in the region. Very often, we are surprised when a country as rich in crude oil as Venezuela slides into a crisis which is grave not only for that country's economy but also for its democracy. We seem to have grown accustomed to Argentina collapsing, and the international capital markets go more in fear of Japan's possible economic downfall than of Argentina's economy going bust. Again and again, though, we put our hopes in a new beginning for democracy, as we have done now in the aftermath of the elections in Columbia, a country which is a prime example of how closely combined are drug crime and international terrorism. It is for our Parliament in particular to demand energetically that the Colombian politician Ingrid Betancour be released from the hands of left-wing guerrillas. At the end of the day, the EU has to give life to Latin America's strategy, which, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said, means making available the financial resources to do it. In real terms, that also means the establishment of a free trade area comprising the EU and the central American and Andean States, which should eventually lead to an association agreement comparable to those with Mexico and Chile. Negotiations on an agreement of this sort with the Mercosur countries have unfortunately taken their place. The European Union should not just leave the Latin American market to the USA. Any Latin American strategy is about much more than economic interests, and we need it also to combat organised crime and illegal immigration. The final measure of what will have been achieved will be the EU-Latin America in Mexico in 2004.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am aware, as we all are, of the serious problems that currently beset the traditional European system of providing asylum. In a world that is becoming ever smaller and better connected by sophisticated methods of communication, a world in which islands of wealth, peace and well-being are surrounded by poverty, war and destitution, considerable migratory pressures from the less-favoured regions are inevitably brought to bear on wealthier parts of the world. This vast migratory mass, which is mainly driven by economic motives, is jeopardising the asylum system, as many economic migrants, without any other legal means of entering rich countries, try to take the asylum route to gain access to EU territory. I therefore welcome the Commission’s two communications. We must establish the asylum system called for at the Tampere European Council. New policies, however, must be drawn up to take account of new realities, such as the mixed flows of refugees and economic migrants, substantially greater now than at the time of the Tampere Council. Asylum seekers will, of course, continue to arrive in numbers at the EU’s external borders and it is for them that much of the current Tampere system is designed. It is, accordingly, essential to maintain what is already in the acquis and to adopt directives still awaiting the Council’s assent, in order to finalise the first part laid down by Tampere on the status of refugees and on asylum procedures, and, in so doing, to move on to the second stage of development. The Council must, therefore, be urged to adopt at the earliest opportunity the directives to which I have just alluded, which were repeatedly requested at the Laeken, Seville and Thessaloniki Councils. The current system clearly has its shortcomings. Many asylum seekers do not actually need asylum. In fact, most of those in genuine need remain in their regions of origin or in border areas, where they are subjected to persecution, distress, indignity, hunger and death. I therefore endorse the Commission’s position that we must look into new methods of asylum that are better suited to the reality of the situation. A new policy must be established to process asylum seekers at the point of arrival in the EU, by means of a Community-wide resettlement scheme and by means of protected entry procedures. Asylum and immigration are two distinct, yet intrinsically linked phenomena, which must be addressed together. I should like to reiterate our call for economic aid to be increased, with no provisos attached, for the regions of origin of migratory flows, with the aim of reducing those flows and of promoting solidarity with the poorest countries and with the people who are most in need. I therefore call on the EU to establish a policy of legal immigration, in which the only means of entering EU territory legally for economic migrants is to ask for asylum, as this is jeopardising the very survival of the system. Europe, Mr President, is the land of asylum and the system must be protected if we are to keep up this humanitarian tradition.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to avoid further destruction of the ozone layer we need above all to restrict our remaining exemptions. An exemption of this kind is granted for CFC-11 to the firm Du Pont in Luxembourg for the manufacture of polyolefin fibres. Du Pont itself has developed an alternative to CFC-11. This alternative is currently being examined by the competent authorities in Luxembourg. There is therefore no reason at all to continue to maintain this exemption. I would therefore ask you, in particular Mrs Flemming and the other Members of the Group, to vote for Amendment No 28. We are not dealing with a developing country here; this is sophisticated technology in a highly developed country. Environmentalists in Luxembourg have campaigned for this exemption to be abolished. The Environment Minister is behind them. If we in the European Parliament do not vote for this then the people of Luxembourg will have the feeling that Europe is a step backwards rather than forwards.

Political group: PPE-DE