GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr Cocilovo, sooner or later, even the European Union will succeed in giving itself some rules in order to apply the two principles: the ‘user pays’ principle, whereby users meet the cost of infrastructure use, and the ‘polluter pays’ principle, whereby polluters will pay the costs of the negative effects of congestion, pollution and health damage, that are becoming ever more evident. Sooner or later it will happen. At the beginning of the parliamentary term we were idealistic about being able to apply both of them: this has not happened, we are half way there. We can say that the excellent Cocilovo report does, at least, allow us to achieve the first objective of sensibly applying the principle according to which those using the roads are charged the cost of them and this money is used to finance maintenance or further construction and, therefore, indirectly, to thus take a broad approach that, by using cross-financing, allows us to take a more comprehensive look at the corridor in which the road runs. Fortunately, however, it seems to me that the Cocilovo report gives some additional guidelines. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with fixing tariffs and only maintaining this objective for some heavy vehicles and for some roads – just for transporting goods, in short – because at the end of the day something is achieved. At the same time, the report suggests guidelines as to the possibility of having different tariffs to take into account congestion and pollution and to encourage a shift to other modes of transport. From this point of view, I feel that the route chosen is positive and should be supported, including this relatively innovative concept, which is a concept upon which I believe we must carry out more work. The World Health Organisation sees a clear link between particulates and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. This implies that we have a duty to intervene, including with a tariff instrument, to ensure that these problems are dealt with seriously.

Political group: ELDR
Ladies and gentlemen, Prime Minister, after what you have said I am satisfied that the great, but also difficult, debate on the future of the Union is in good hands with you. So, open that door as wide as possible in Laeken so that we can have a thorough debate. And, as a Fleming, I should like to ask you to ensure that, in this debate, the regions are finally able to play a role in the Union. As you quite rightly said, a radical intervention is necessary to make it clear to people how important the Union can be for them. But more is required than that. The Union must also work through, and carry to a conclusion, the decisions that it has taken and is still taking. And you have already mentioned a number of things. As a Liberal, I should like to stress a few more: the Tampere Summit , the rights and duties of the citizen and security. I am glad that you have said that it is high time that some impact was felt. That Tampere Summit is almost two years old. The Lisbon Summit was about achieving the most competitive and efficient economy in the world. It was a very liberal declaration, but the fire has gone out of it. I am glad that there are a few important liberalising issues on the table and that you have said that, during this Presidency, a few must be solved. The Gothenburg Summit of a few weeks ago was about sustainability, including the decision to comply with Kyoto. Therefore, the Commission must table a proposal as soon as possible on the trading of emission rights and, under your Presidency, something must be done as soon as possible with that proposal so that we can apply Kyoto in an economically feasible manner. That is of huge importance to the European economy, and certainly to the Flemish economy. The Feira Summit is my last example. At that summit, already over a year ago, a charter for small and medium-sized businesses was approved. The Union has had a policy on small and medium-sized businesses for such a long time, but the benefits of the Union sometimes seem very far off, especially for small businesses. People find it all too complicated, so give concrete form to a few of those provisions of the charter for small and medium-sized businesses. And if you implement a number of decisions where security, competition policy, small and medium-sized business policy and the environment are concerned, , you will increase the impact of Europe on people and we shall be able to say at the end of the year, as in the TV commercial: “a little pride can do no harm”.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as far as the general situation is concerned, I would echo fully the concerns and criticisms expressed by the two previous speakers. I would ask you to bear with me, however, if I concentrate exclusively on the situation of the shipyards in eastern Germany. In the image of the boxing ring, which Mr Gomolka used, the east German shipyards must, in addition, climb into the ring wearing handcuffs. They are facing rigid restrictions on production capacity and, of course, I know that these were the condition for high subsidies in the nineties. But firstly, they are managed bureaucratically and secondly, no account is taken of the fact that these shipyards do in fact also continue to invest during the general process of rationalisation. The resulting growth in productivity triggers further cuts in the workforce. The Commission has very good statistical data about the dramatic situation in eastern Germany, Commissioner. It is one thing to read that one in every three people there is seeking work, however, and quite another perhaps to experience it first-hand. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am very well aware that since 1990 the Union has acted in great solidarity with east Germany and that the Commission has done a great deal. Of course, the Federal German Government is also called upon to act here. But in the specific case of the shipbuilding industry, the decision lies, above all, with the Commission. I think that the Treaty of Amsterdam offers sufficient room for manoeuvre for political action to be taken and for the saving clause on capacity restrictions in the Treaty to be used in 2001. In my view, it is necessary, firstly, to make the quotas more flexible so that they are no longer annual but are applied for the remaining five years; secondly to factor-in the impact of rationalisation and take this into account and, thirdly – and I really support this point – to reintroduce general production aid for as long as South Korea causes these gross distortions of competition.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should sincerely like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Paulsen, who has guided us through the minefield of issues which this regulation has presented in an atmosphere of mutual consultation. I am pleased that this regulation provides a modern version of obsolete legislation on offal. After two years of negotiations, it was very much overdue. What is important in this regulation is that dead animals and condemned animal material can no longer be brought into the food chain. The only products which may still be used for the production of animal feed will be material derived from slaughtered animals declared fit for human consumption. Additionally, it is clear that the recycling of animal meal in animal feed is nothing short of cannibalism, and should thus be banned by introducing separate production lines and full traceability. This regulation's implementation should therefore be foolproof, and we have not heard the last of this, of course. Controlling cannibalism will require an important reorganisation of the sector that collects, and disposes of, animal waste. We are aware that there are quite a few tricksters and frauds active in this sector who are involved in very shady practices, and that this matter is highly susceptible to fraud. This will therefore require considerable efforts in the area of inspections on the part of the Member States, as Mr Whitehead rightly pointed out. I should like to finish off with a comment on kitchen and restaurant waste that contains animal products, on which we have reached a respectable compromise. It was not easy, but the compromise is before us, mainly thanks to pressure from our German and Austrian fellow MEPs. I do not want to hide the fact that this issue is very sensitive in my country. All agricultural organisations in Belgium insist on an absolute ban on this practice due to health risks. Minor causes can indeed have grave consequences, as was borne out by the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and African swine fever. Despite this, I can tell you that the majority of my group will eventually be endorsing the texts before us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, since I first raised this question it has been interesting to see, in terms of language, how the approach of Members of Parliament and the Commission has actually changed. The Commission came to the Committee on Fisheries and said 'We have no way of negotiating a new agreement so we shall just extend it for another year'. Members indicated that the aim of this was to allow EU vessels to continue fishing despite the conflict. You are now actually trying to give the impression that this is somehow about helping the people in Côte d'Ivoire: the reality is that this is about helping ourselves. This is a country that is virtually in a state of civil war. It is impossible for the government to guarantee control and surveillance – in fact these were never satisfactory, even during peace time. What happens now is that the EU fleets can do what they like with no supervision whatsoever. The Commission actually promised a different approach to third-country agreements and this does not bode well. With respect to Côte d'Ivoire, the Commission has itself noted that the country faces serious problems in the control and surveillance of its waters. The state of monitoring is described as a major constraint. The Commission also noted that no information was actually received on the catches of surface long-liners and freeze trawlers. The Commission has also stated that, under the current terms of its third-country agreements, including the one with Côte d'Ivoire, it is impossible to know whether the money intended for the so-called targeted actions such as control and enforcement is, in fact, spent in the appropriate manner. We have said that this money should be placed in a separate budget. When it comes to the tuna canneries, look at where the main profits are going: there is complete hypocrisy here. This is a country in a state of conflict and it looks like the EU's approach is to allow our fleets to continue undisturbed, despite the fact that there is a conflict going on. This is the worst example ever of a fisheries agreement, and the Commission has to live up to its commitments and its promise to take a different approach to fisheries agreements where that is in the interest of the third country rather than in the interest of the European Union's over-capacity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first can I congratulate Malcolm Harbour, the rapporteur, on his own-initiative report on the Next Generation Internet: the need for an EU research initiative. The degree of support for the report is indicated both by the fact that it was adopted unanimously in committee, and by the fact that there are no amendments. The House certainly appears to be fully in support. In the Socialist Group, we particularly support the high priority given to making sure that we include in the Sixth Framework Programme work on the Next Generation Internet, and that we develop a broad-banded infrastructure capability and a new super fast trans-European research network. We want to make sure that EU research initiatives complement market-driven research, thereby avoiding conflict or duplication. There are, however, at least four areas that are in need of clarification: first, in paragraph 2, we talk about the need for pre-competitive research. We agree that it should be pre-competitive, not uncompetitive, which may be a different term. The model we see is the Japanese model on research cartels where people work together during the development of a new technology before they go off and compete with each other when it gets close to the marketplace. Secondly, in paragraph 7, we talk about it being technologically neutral. That is fine, provided that is not an excuse for inaction where we wait for the technology to be determined. We need to feed into that process and be flexible, but we also need to be active. Thirdly on system security, it is clear that we need to be able to protect this Internet generation, and the next one, in terms of enabling people to engage in cash transactions and to transmit confidential information. I hope that the Commission will look at both the technology and the legislation that is needed to ensure that the necessary levels of encryption can be put in place to protect the public, without aiding the criminals. Finally, the key issues of universal access. The Commission will have to ensure that we achieve this and that it is available to everybody, and not just those living in urban areas.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have asked for the floor in order to add to Mrs Napoletano’s words. In addition to the indignation of my group and myself, as soon as I realised what was happening, I contacted the security services but they failed to respond. This would appear quite a serious matter, for, in my opinion, there should always be security staff on duty at Parliament, and they should be able to intervene when incidents such as this demonstration take place and put a stop to them. This is a very serious matter, Mr President, and it should be explicitly condemned, as Mrs Napoletano said – but I do not want to be drawn into a lengthy discussion here – we must find out who invited these delinquents to Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have listened with complete amazement to some of the things that have been said here tonight. It is very difficult to work out whether there are any facts amongst all that fiction. There has been a complete cloud of confusion, and indeed a cloud of confusion that now has an odour of hypocrisy about it that I cannot believe. These are the facts. Those ships are dry cargo ships, they are not war vessels. Those ships do not contain any more toxic materials than any other normal cargo ship. The only asbestos on them is the asbestos you would find around any engine on any ship. The only oil on them is the oil you would find in the tanks that fuel them – they are not petrol tankers. They have very little in the way of PCBs and other hazardous substances. They have a seaworthiness certificate which was granted to them before they left harbour – and they would not have left harbour unless they had it. The States whose waters they pass through on the way have been consulted and their views taken into account. We are doing this properly and we are doing it because we decided ten years ago not to dump our oil rigs into the North Sea, but to bring them back to Teesside and other places and recycle them. We have the capacities. We have the knowledge. We have the capabilities to do what the Americans cannot do, because they dump their oil rigs into the Gulf of Mexico. The Commissioner should be asking what is going to happen to the 100 and more ships that are leaving EU waters this year to be dumped and destroyed in the Third World in a totally unacceptable manner, rather than making remarks about things being done properly by the British.

Political group: PSE
In today’s sitting, the European Parliament adopted the General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2000. The vote on the budget is a key point in the parliamentary calendar. Throughout the process of drawing up the budget, the Group of the forcefully defended the principles of Union solidarity and political commitment with regard to the most disadvantaged in order to meet the objective of eradicating poverty. As a member of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, I paid particular attention to the development of Category 4, intended to finance the Union’s external policies and to promote development aid. Indeed, the Community’s historical and political responsibility towards developing countries must be fully taken up by this House and represents one of our absolute priorities. Despite the rationale of the general reduction of appropriations allocated to development aid, the European Community is, and must remain, the main partner of the most disadvantaged countries. In this respect, we cannot accept the Council proposal to implement a 10% reduction in the appropriations allocated for cooperation and development in order to finance the reconstruction of Kosovo and aid to Turkey following the earthquake, or support for East Timor. The cost of these displays of solidarity, all perfectly legitimate, must not be borne by the poorest countries on earth. Indeed, how could we sanction any reduction in the amounts allocated to the prevention of AIDS when it is known that 25 million people on the continent of Africa are already condemned to die from this scourge? Industrialised countries in general and the Member States of the Union in particular must not withdraw from their development aid commitment as that would have social, economic, political and health-related repercussions on the ever fragile equilibrium of the most disadvantaged countries. This is why, while being fully aware that the increase in Community spending is occasionally hard for the public finances of Member States to bear, I voted, in spite of everything, in favour of the resolution proposed by the general rapporteur for the budget.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am not going to raise a point of order, under Rule 141 of the Rules of Procedure, because, as you said, we leave this until the end of the debate, but I do want to speak under Rule 122 due to personal allusions. Mr Barón Crespo has made a completely unfounded accusation here, and I ask you, Madam President, to ask Mr Barón Crespo to retract it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree to a large extent with the critical comments in the report and Mr Gemelli's proposals. However, I too doubt that it will be possible to halve the number of poor people by 2015. The new-liberal policies of the northern countries, which have made the rich richer and kept the poor in the poverty trap, are also shaping development policy. The new motto ‘Everything but Arms’ sounds fine but misses the mark. First, the arsenals are so full, as the result of arms exports from industrialised countries, including Germany, that war can be waged and will be waged with the weapons already available. Secondly, it is hypocritical of the European Union to preach liberalisation of the markets as a universal panacea while bemoaning the fact that the 48 poorest countries have been allowed to export all their products to the Union duty free since the year 2000. Thirdly, I think it is cynical of rich countries – including Germany – to encourage a brain drain from developing countries, thereby pulling the rug out from under a self-perpetuating upswing. Development policy is not just altruism, it is self interest. It is striking that areas which provide raw materials are defined as areas of interest and, according to the new NATO strategy and the rules of engagement for the future EU strike force, areas of interest can also be secured using military force. If we want a new European Union for the twenty-first century, then we need a radical change in development policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Unfortunately, the Council of Ministers has presented us with a text which will lead to a further delay in amending the Directive of 1991. We had hoped that this new version would be pushed through in first reading. It now seems likely we will have to go through a mediation process, because we simply cannot accept the academic and impractical position adopted by the Finance Ministers, which Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs do not agree with either. It is impossible to impose the transfer of existing money laundering rules for financial service providers lock, stock and barrel to all other professional groups such as lawyers and tax consultants and then insinuate that we simply wanted to protect the guild of lawyers. This is just not the case. It makes no sense that lawyers cannot settle an insurance claim or that brokers cannot draw up a plan until they have established their credentials. It makes just as little sense to demand that cash only be handed over from person to person. Such a demand would mean that bank night safe-deposit boxes would have to be set up immediately. This would cause problems, however, for business people, especially from small and medium-sized businesses, who, for obvious reasons of security, deposit their day’s takings in the safe-deposit box of their bank after the banks have closed. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the laundering of money from criminal activity. I fully endorse the reasonable position adopted by the rapporteur, which the Finance Ministers could also live with. They at least should know that any further delay in amending the money-laundering Directive is irresponsible, especially since the money-laundering mafia is becoming increasingly adept. As a Member of the European Parliament who comes from Luxembourg, the effectiveness of the fight against the laundering of money from criminal activity lies very close to my heart, as the Grand Duchy has some of the strictest laws on money laundering. These laws and their application as well as the cooperation resulting from the 1991 Directive must not be undermined by a too broadly interpreted definition of ‘criminal activity’, which is what is called for under the common position adopted by the Council. For reasons of efficiency, the directive should essentially be limited to combating the laundering of money from organised crime, which was its original objective.

Political group: PPE-DE