GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, would like to thank Mrs Corbey most warmly for the great effort she has put in. She had, apart from anything else, 123 amendments to work through, 35 of which were from my group alone. Let me now also express very warm thanks to Mrs Ayuso González, who managed to achieve a coalition of highly divergent intentions in a most important area. I am referring to Amendment No 45, to which I personally will be giving firm support. You see, the Packaging Directive has already been transposed in widely divergent ways, and incurred different costs, in the individual Member States, rather than leading to the harmonisation that is required. The maximum rate is therefore meant to prevent the four-speed Europe in this area from drifting even further apart, with even greater distortions of competition being the consequence. Since 1994, the current quotas have been achieved only by Austria, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark, although one has to bear in mind that the Netherlands and Denmark have done so only because they have fully-developed and highly economical systems of waste incineration, whereas Belgium and Germany have managed it through the use of the sort of recovery processes that environmental considerations make less than desirable and which will, indeed, cease to be authorised as a result of a change in definition contained in the proposal for a Directive. As regards the burden of costs, Austria comes second in Europe, and it is high import levels and the huge problem of freeloaders getting away with not paying their way, especially in the plastics sector, that put Austrian foodstuff production, like, no doubt, that of other States as well, at the greatest competitive disadvantage. As we have said so many times already, we will vote for this draft, but one most specific area seems to me to be in real need of improvement. The Commission proposes that, in addition, the following minimum targets for the recovery of materials contained in packaging waste should be achieved: 60% by weight for glass, 65% by weight for paper, and so on. With your permission, I will turn to Amendment No 45. The 25% by weight minimum target for the recovery of materials is quite adequate for materials such as glass, paper, carton, metals and plastics. As an Austrian, you see, I have not the slightest problem with it, but we have also learned that, where countries are quite simply not so far advanced, there is no point in giving them targets that they know they will not achieve anyway. I do think it makes more ecological sense to set an objective that is actually capable of being achieved by all Europe's states and economies. We have always made environmental policy with business rather than against it. Only an environmentally responsible market economy will enable us to reach our goal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is permissible, in the context of Mrs Avilés Perea’s report, to pay tribute to one’s own committee for once. I believe that we were very prompt in our response as soon as justified doubts arose – to which previous speakers have already made reference – about the way in which the Committee of the Regions managed public funds. I think it is important to make this point for once in this House. We have a Committee on Budgetary Control, and it is sensitive and flexible enough to exercise its responsibility within a matter of hours. I do not believe that any problems were caused by the decision to postpone discharge for the Committee of the Regions as a result of the concerns addressed to us. Indeed, I believe it showed that occasionally, there are small institutions within the European Union – so-called small institutions, although our taxpayers would probably take a different view – which might have a budget of EUR 30 million, where the members turn up once every few months and perhaps deliver an important speech before a plenary, and where otherwise, there is a great temptation to indulge in petty empire-building within the European Community. I am most grateful to the President and his staff at the Committee of the Regions for having drawn the right conclusions from our comments, but I think it will be a lesson for us in other cases as well. I endorse the comments made by the previous speakers, and will gladly vote for Mrs Avilés Perea’s report.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wished to speak in this evening’s debate for two reasons. First of all, I too wish to reiterate the importance of energy for Europe at a time when it is predicted that we will be 70% dependent on external energy sources in 2030 with clearly very little room for manoeuvre. Next I wish to stress that I entirely support the approach of Mr Chichester, who is proposing both a diversification of energy sources and the development of all current sources without exception. These proposals do, of course, make calls for liberalisation that I would probably have rejected had they appeared in isolation. They are presented today, however, in a very broad range of demands, some of which are extremely bold and that is why I am able to support the package put forward by Mr Chichester, whom I wish to compliment on his report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Parliament's committees on which I sit have in the last few days made important progress with legislation on both financial services and energy market liberalisation. It will be tragic if the European Council cannot also match Europe's urgent needs and their own rhetoric at Lisbon and bring this area of legislation to completion and soon. Beyond this, I stress the critical importance of research and development and innovation to the future of Europe. Mr Prodi highlighted this policy area and said quite rightly there is no reason why Europe should not lead the world in biotechnology, which is undoubtedly going to be the leading area of science and industry, of employment and improved quality of life for the next few decades. And yet, what do we have? Bickering over the Community patent, moratoria and antagonisms, procedural obstacles which have forestalled all progress in genetically modified crops and a tremendous promise they offer to us in Europe and the developing world especially. What do we have? Over-complex and expensive approval procedures and patenting processes for new products in healthcare and pharmaceuticals. We cannot afford to lose our best scientists to our competitors where they are better appreciated, given scope to realise their ambitions and are suitably rewarded. We are already two years past Lisbon, there are only eight more years to 2010 when we are to be the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. Action will speak louder than words, Mr President-in-Council, there is little or no time to lose.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to record my support for this report as a major step forward in facilitating the application of the 'polluter pays' principle. When environmental damage occurs, the first question always is: who is going to pay? This report makes it possible to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, a principle which must be used with great consistency and efficiency. The requirement for the Commission to present a report, within six years, will also give us the option to revisit this important area and properly assess its impact in practice. In an ideal world I would expect that citizens would be protected from any risk of environmental damage – and thankfully we are making progress in terms of some real preventative measures. But, unfortunately, far too much environmental damage still occurs and we must have tough measures to make sure those who cause such damage really do pay the cost. The measures included in this report will also ensure that polluters face similar requirements, and penalties, right across the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. Following Mr Titley's observation, I would simply say that this is a most important question. I am sure those who were not able to speak were very pleased to hear the Commissioner's comments. I will submit my questions to him I should like to point out that four of our colleagues here today asked three questions. If the President, and indeed colleagues, would limit themselves to one question, by my mathematics nine further speakers might have been called.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin by pointing out a technical correction. This is something that should have been picked up in committee but, unfortunately, it was not. It refers in Annex IV, 2.2, to gauge pressure of 500 HPA, where in fact it should actually refer to 0.5 HPA. I would be most grateful if that small technical correction could be made. I am sure all manufacturers of car heating systems would also be grateful. There are two further amendments on this. Both are very technical and have been suggested to me by the industry. When I looked at them I did not see any problem. I have submitted them to the committee and it has approved them. The very fact that I have stood up here and said that two further amendments have been submitted to me by the manufacturers highlights the dilemma Parliament faces with this type of directive. Last month, I moved a report on making buses accessible to disabled people. Certain people criticised that report because it was far too technical. I had actually taken a lot of the technicalities out of it. However, when we come to this report, I wonder what I am doing, standing here at 10.30 p.m. on a Tuesday night, arguing over technicalities. This is not a job for Parliament. We should be directing policy in the way it is going, but we should not be discussing technicalities which would have been better addressed elsewhere. I would like to suggest to the Commission that some of us get together at some point in the near future to stop this sort of report coming on to the agenda of Parliament. It is wasting the Commission's time and it is wasting our time. It is high time that we started looking at ways of removing these technical reports – which are not political by any means – from the agenda. They should be discussed within the appropriate forum where engineers, technicians, scientists etc., or whatever technical group, would look at these specifications rather than coming to me. I am not an engineer: I was a milkman in my first trade. I do not know how I am expected to know the difference between 0.5 HPA and 500 HPA. I make a plea to the Commission that we address this problem. Hopefully we can get a decent night's sleep some time in the future.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the stir which the Bouwman report has caused shows quite well the chaos European decision-making finds itself in and what kind of complex compromises are being struck as a result. Parliament was divided between supporters of two different solutions. Eventually, a majority was achieved for one of the solutions, a majority which also encompassed the Group of the . In normal administrative relations, this decision by Parliament would be final; not so in the European Union. A conciliation procedure had to take place. This procedure between the Council and Parliament resulted in a compromise which is rather noncommittal as long as it is not accompanied by a Commission statement. This statement explains how the Commission interprets the word “substantial” in Article 8 (1). Substantial appears to mean 30% here, but this cannot be made explicit in the text itself. From the outset, there was a battle between a majority which supported 90% and a minority which was in favour of 0%. This has now resulted in a percentage which is nearer to 0 than 90 and which may not be made public. Everyone is now agreed that ship’s waste and cargo residues can no longer be discharged at sea but there is substantial disagreement about how this ship’s waste is to be collected and, more to the point, how this collection should be funded. Around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, preference was given to funding based on a general levy for each ship. This should prevent anyone from seeking financial gain by not delivering waste at officially designated sites. Around the Mediterranean Sea, however, there was preference for payment according to the waste collected. Instead of developing both systems separately to start with and comparing the respective environmental effects, attempts are now being forced through to arrive at one solution for all. This is prejudicing the northern model. It would be better if, instead of applying an overall EU solution, this matter could be regulated according to which particular sea was involved. Without the European Union, it would have been easier to reach an agreement between groups of separate countries for each sea. In this case, the presence of the European Union is not conducive to finding a joint, cross-border solution. Despite this, my group has voted in favour because this regulation is better than nothing. I hope a review will take place within the next couple of years so that the original intentions of the Bouwman report can be brought to bear.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to make it known, on behalf of the Group of the , that we have abstained in the vote on the final resolution, despite the fact that we clearly support the resolution on the issues which are within the competence of the European Council in Feira, that is to say, the Intergovernmental Conference and the economic and social agenda. With regard to the case of Austria, we understand that, firstly, the European Parliament’s resolution, which was voted for at the time, is still in force, since no new events have occurred; because it is not a Community issue as such, but has been raised by the fourteen Member States; because, furthermore, my Group supported President Klestil’s appearance and we took good note of his positive proposals, which are in fact related to issues which come within the competence of the Commission – which is not present – such as the application of Article 7 and the strengthening of our community of values. We believe that this inclusion has not been appropriate in terms of improving the process, it is untimely, and furthermore, we believe that the best way to create new circumstances is not for one party, as Mr Galeote himself has said today, to set conditions and also demand guarantees from a party which belongs to the same group and is in the Austrian Government. Their content has not even been considered. Furthermore, it is not acceptable that we have to endure a campaign of provocation, threats and insults not only by members of the Austrian Government, but also by the political forces which support it. This is not the best way to improve our relations. For that reason – because we believe that we have to continue working for the European Union and we do not believe that the best approach is to take shortcuts with regard to such a serious issue – for that reason, we have abstained.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the WTO deals primarily with issues pertaining to the opening up of markets. For example, there is a discussion on-going at the moment about China, and whether our European manufacturers are to have access to the textile market as well. It is a market worth billions and could create many new jobs here in Europe, particularly when one considers that the only possession many Chinese have to their name is a pair of trousers. The cultural question I would most like to hear answered though, is this: how are we proposing to handle the language issue in future? France pursues a very independent policy where the French language is concerned. Do you see any evidence of similar tendencies on the part of the Germans, Spanish or Portuguese? Are we going to take an even-handed approach in this respect or will we form an assessment on a country-by-country basis, taking into account the respective size of population?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, thank you for the full explanation you have given me on the aid to the Bolivian Government. The President has referred to the European Union’s intention to focus its attention on the causes of the crisis. It appears that these causes relate above all to the liberalisation and modernisation requirements in a country which has very serious structural problems, as a result of the international situation. Specifically, my supplementary question is whether, in view of the failure of Sánchez de Losada’s experiment in liberalisation, following the formulae of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Union and all the international institutions currently governing world economics have considered the consequences of the failure of these policies which we are imposing on them and the need to reconsider a new type of policy with regard to countries such as Bolivia.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my congratulations to Mrs Myller who I know has thought long and hard about this report. It seems to me that the debate comes down to this: do we believe that the Gothenburg Protocol was the best Member States can realistically achieve? I recognise that the Commission and environmental groups believe that in practice much more can be delivered but nonetheless some Member States have committed themselves to significant reductions in air pollution – though that is certainly not true of all of them. Some Member States seem to have gone into the negotiations with a few calculations on the back of an envelope and refused to compromise in any way to set themselves any realistic targets. Others have not even used the same methodology, the same basis of calculation as others. So the protocol in many ways is a nonsense. It can give us no confidence whatsoever. It is a messy political compromise and nothing more. I do not know how much more the Commissioner can achieve but we should be seeking reductions in air pollution and we should be giving her our support in her efforts to negotiate them. We should support this report and give her our backing.

Political group: ELDR
The Danish Social Democrats have today voted for the report by Mr Cashman on a proposal for a Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents because we believe that an acceptable compromise has been reached and because we believe that the forces that wish for much greater openness and access have achieved more in the negotiations than the countries and forces that have sought to maintain closed systems. At the same time, it is our assessment that we would not have achieved a better result by letting the matter go to a second reading. In our assessment of the compromise, we attached particular importance to the principles that, as a starting point, all documents should be included, including internal documents, that the number of exceptions should be reduced, and that these should be well-founded, that requests should be dealt with more quickly than was originally proposed and that it should be established that Danish authorities will continue to deal with requests for access to documents in accordance with Danish rules. If a system is to enjoy our citizens’ confidence, it is not sufficient for it merely to be open under the rules. Instead, it must also be experienced as being open. A great deal of work remains to be done here by citizens and the press, who must use the new rules actively and who must also test the limits of these new rules. It is our hope that the coming years will show all the forces that are sceptical about transparency that it benefits not just democracy but also the institutions’ own internal work for the public to have access to the documents being worked on.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have to bear in mind that the situation in Sudan varies greatly depending on the region. In the north we are dealing with a problematic regime, which is however displaying clear reformist tendencies, and which is supported by Egypt. In the south we have a brutal and bloody civil war, which it would be too simplistic to describe solely as a conflict between Islam and Christianity. There are also conflicts amongst Muslims themselves and amongst Christian tribes, although the main conflict is indeed between Christians and Muslims. This shows that this is not actually a war of religion but a series of tribal conflicts, ethnic conflicts, and that interested parties, including interested parties in the oil industry – for once this must be said – are systematically fanning the flames of these conflicts. That is why I am very grateful that the motion addresses this issue very clearly: the problematic role of certain parties who have interests in the natural resources – we have seen this in the Caucasus and in Congo too – and who are abusing ethnic conflicts to brutally increase their own profits. That is why as Europeans we are not only under a particular obligation to influence the people in Sudan, to work with them on a peace solution and to exert pressure on all of the parties in the conflict, but we also have a duty to hold serious talks with our European oil companies operating out there and to make it clear to them how great their responsibility is for this strategically important region and for the people who live there. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The English philosopher John Locke once said that a country without law is a country without freedom. Fifty years after the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights, twenty years after the Helsinki Final Act, ten years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and one year after the coming into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, there are constitutional provisions remaining in the heart of Europe which belong to the medieval age – provisions which have no place in a modern Europe. For instance, Victor Emmanuel of Italy was forced to leave his native Italy as an uncomprehending nine-year old child, and for fifty-three years has been unable to return. If he sails from his home in Corsica in the direction of Italian territorial waters, coastguards are mobilised using modern satellite technology instructing him with loudspeakers to turn back. His twenty-eight-year-old son has only been to Italy once when his plane was diverted to Milan airport because of bad weather. The plane was surrounded by police guards and he was told not to step off the plane. What has he got to do with what his great-grandfather did during the Fascist era? 80% of Italians in a recent poll believe these people should be allowed to return without restrictions. Neither represent any conceivable threat to the Italian State. This is not, as some have tried to claim, an issue affecting only a few people; it goes to the heart of the European Union's commitment to respect the Convention on Human Rights, to its own Treaties and to the rule of law. There is much talk of a Charter of Fundamental Rights. Such talk will ring exceedingly hollow if this Parliament does not first do all it can to address existing Treaty violations. I speak as someone with a deep and abiding love for Italy and its people, but I say here to you today, and to President Ciampi of Italy, that Italy had neither the moral nor the legal right to sign the Treaty of Amsterdam until it had removed this most blatant violation of the Convention from its own constitution. This is also the case for Austria where Otto von Habsburg was required to deny his own identity and renounce rights belonging to him and to members of his family to enter Austria. The rights under the Treaty are not conditional in my view. The Treaty does not discriminate against individual families and the Treaty is therefore violated. The right to enter, live and die in your own country are fundamental, sacrosanct rights and I hope that this Parliament will uphold them. I therefore commend paragraphs 41 and 42 to this House.

Political group: PPE-DE