GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, much has been said tonight, and it is difficult to add anything refreshingly new. However, I believe that this debate on energy security has never been so important. We need only look at the recent power cuts on the east coast of America to see how an energy crisis impacts on ordinary people - no power, no lights in family homes, no refrigeration, millions of dollars lost by small businesses. This incident was merely the result of a technical or human error that was rectified very quickly, but it has been a much needed wake-up call to those of us who too often take our energy supply for granted. Recently the Institution of Civil Engineers said that the UK could face power cuts in 20 years' time because of its dependency on foreign energy sources. It has also estimated that in the UK alone – even given centres of excellence around the North Sea such as the European energy capital of Aberdeen – 80% of the gas needed to fuel British power stations will come from distant and politically unstable countries. Although Member States certainly have responsibilities for securing their own energy supplies, the need for cooperation early in a crisis situation will be vital. However, judging by the debate this evening, opinion is certainly divided. Safeguarding supply is paramount, but how do we reassure the public that we have security of supply? Much has been achieved in the energy agenda in the EU, and liberalisation, at any rate in the UK, has allowed for consumers to have choice and hence cheaper gas and electricity, but, as Mr Linkohr has suggested, if gas prices increase in the near future, consumers will be very unhappy. New threats from terrorism and sabotage – as we have seen in Iraq – and our increasing dependence on energy from outside the EU pose huge challenges. As Mr Mitchell, from the UK's Royal Institute of International Affairs has stated, the key to energy security lies in diversity of supply.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to remove the second part of the amendment because apparently a lot of people would support the first part, but not the second part. To make it easier for people to support it we have removed the second part.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that we are holding this debate in the European Parliament today, because the issue of Europe's external borders is one that we really have to tackle. The question we have to address politically speaking, and which we are currently examining in the Convention, is how far European integration can go. What is the bond that links us together politically and encourages us to take joint political action? Geography is another issue that we need to discuss. What are the geographical limits to a Europe that is willing to cooperate within this political union? And that leads on to this question: how are we to work with our neighbours beyond this closely cooperating Europe? I would accordingly like to thank the Commission and the Council for having addressed in their paper and in today's debate something that Europe urgently needs: a wide-ranging public debate on this very issue, the geographical expansion of Europe, not of the continent of Europe, but of close political cooperation within the European Union. We will also have to stop thinking in black and white terms, as if relations can only take two forms – non-membership or full membership. It would be the worst possible mistake if that were the signal we were sending out. Europe has at its disposal a broad panoply of individual forms of cooperation. I myself come from a constituency that will continue to border on a non-Member State, namely Switzerland. In this case we have found a variety of solutions, including legal solutions based on agreements and cooperation arrangements through integration and specific European programmes. This is a perfect example of how the interests of a particular country – Switzerland – and of the EU can be reconciled without simply saying, ‘you either remain on the outside or you become a full member’. So we should focus once again on achieving this broad panoply of means of cooperating with our neighbours without constantly having discussions about ever more countries joining the European Union. We also need to ask ourselves what the limits are to Europe's capacity for integration. If we are to discuss the question of political boundaries, of political responsibility, then we also need to consider who can tread this path alongside us. A European Union that ultimately degenerates into an enormous free trade area is not the model I am committed to, and I think that my fellow Members feel the same way. I also expect these debates to be held in public and not in the Council, essentially at the meetings of Heads of State and Government, which discussed Turkey's accession in less than three minutes. That is no way to deal with issues of this kind. We need to listen to people here, and that must be the signal that goes out from Strasbourg today. We must take the public with us, and if they are ready to go down this road with us, we should work together politically to make it happen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Renate Sommer, on the work which she carried out on her report. Of course, her work is so good that I believe that there will be agreement with the Council right from the first reading, which makes today's debate less interesting. But, in all events, this does not mean that we should not recall that Mrs Sommer worked in a very good and systematic manner and managed to make the Commission's initial proposal acceptable to almost all the members of our committee. At the same time, she agreed with the Council that we would proceed very quickly on what was necessary, in other words the interoperability of toll systems at European level. We agree with the Commission proposal in principle, because it makes life easier for users, that is, drivers, who will have fewer difficulties in cross-border transport with this approach. We simply have a few objections – and I am glad that both the Commission and the Council understand them – which focus on two points. First, when will this new toll concept start to be applied? We propose that the timetable be postponed from 2005 to 2007 for buses and lorries, because we consider that two years are needed so that everyone who has to adapt can adapt and the system can start operating. Secondly, will the new satellite positioning system be applied exclusively or not? This system caused a great many problems when it started to be applied in Germany. I think that it does the rapporteur credit that she demonstrates a truly European perception of this specific issue; in other words, she does not want to impose the German system exclusively and she proposes, with all her fellow Members, that this decision be taken in agreement with the relevant sector, the Member States and the other agencies involved, so that we really can be sure that the systems will be interoperable and efficient for everyone.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report on the quality and safety of tissues and cells concerns a rather technical, but extremely sensible, proposal for a directive. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market have, however, turned this directive into a manifesto mixing so-called ethical considerations with a genuine attack on research into life sciences, while riding roughshod over the principle of subsidiarity. If nobody in the European Parliament wishes to defend human cloning, we cannot resolve this issue by the back door, in other words by the roundabout means of a recital or article referring to another subject. In particular, we cannot erect Community barriers to research into embryonic stem cells. If some States wish to ban this kind of research at national level, they are free to do so and do not require an authorisation from the European Parliament. In any case, the biotechnological revolution will take place with or without Europe. It would therefore be preferable for Europe not to become entangled in further rearguard action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the elections in Cambodia, which at least represented progress by virtue of being the first local elections for decades, were preceded by an electoral campaign in which the media were manipulated by the ruling party and persons in positions of power, who exploited them for their sole benefit. A tide of intimidation directed at the opposition parties culminated in innumerable violent deaths and mysterious murders. That being so, these elections cannot be described as free in the true sense of the word, even though our colleagues have reported from Cambodia that the ballot itself seems largely to have been conducted in a correct manner. We must, though, register the fact that there is still a great need for democracy to really take root in this country, which has been tested by adversity and has suffered more than any other in the world from the horrors of the twentieth century. No other country in the world has seen a totalitarian rampage such as took place in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and so the wounds are not going to be healed overnight. We must, though, nonetheless see to it that we apply clear standards and promote democracy and the Rule of Law – and that can only be done through the local communities. I therefore appeal to the Commission and the Council to systematically promote and support the newly-elected local assemblies, by which I mean not only the representatives of the ruling party but also those of the opposition parties, which must not be allowed to degenerate into fig leaves, but which are needed so that this first tentative step towards democracy may result in real democracy and not just a propaganda show. We therefore need training and development for local politicians; they, their access to the media, and free media themselves, need to be fostered. These need to be the priorities of our future policy on Cambodia. Forces such as Funcinpec, too, as well as others, need to be promoted by us, so that a genuine and stable multi-party system may arise in this country that has suffered so much more than any other.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, I should first like to thank you for clarifying that the sanctions against Austria were not imposed by the Council or any other European institution. I believe that this is very important because of course the decision of the Heads of State and Government had no legal base and was made without hearing the aggrieved party. It was therefore an inappropriate course of action, the like of which has actually never occurred before in the European Union. That is why I would be interested to know whether you, in your capacity as President-in-Office of the Council, believe that this decision against Austria was actually also the reason for the no vote in Ireland last week.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Tajani, who has just spoken, makes me very glad that I have a minute less in which to speak, and that is the least I can offer, for what is a mere minute against Mr Berlusconi?. After an intervention like that, I am glad Mr Schulz got a minute from me and was able to speak for longer. Now, though, I really do want to deal with different subject matter, one that is very, very important to me. For 16 months we have had an EU-wide problem that we have not yet been able to resolve. It was terrible for us to have to face what happened at Dover. Now we have another 13 people found in a lorry in Ireland, eight of them dead, among them two children. Minister, I ask the Council, the Commission and Mr Vitorino, that in this area, above all, we should, as we must, carefully go over our homework again, in order to bring in the measures that are so urgently needed if we are not to find even more refugees dead.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our group is withdrawing Amendment no. 1, as it has been agreed that the need for a permanent UN force to be sent to areas of crisis world-wide should generally be discussed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, as this issue is not directly connected with East Timor.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to ask you to postpone the vote on the legislative resolution further to yesterday’s communication by Commissioner de Palacio that she would not accept what is now being decided upon by a large majority in Parliament. In my opinion, we should set aside some time to consult further with Mrs de Palacio on this matter, because if we do not, although she may present a draft regulation in a few months’ time, the regulation will be in a form different from that which has now been accepted by Parliament. That is why I propose postponing the vote on the legislative resolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I found out about this speech only a couple of minutes ago, but this is a very serious matter. We are talking about human life. For that reason I was happy to come and speak here at such very short notice. It was a pity that the Committee headed off in the wrong direction right at the start. We politicians wanted to leave our mark only because we were elected to this Parliament. The issue is a lot more serious than that. This is about saving human lives and finding the means of doing so as quickly as possible. We must therefore forget the political approach; we have to support the Commission’s very rational proposal and, likewise, the excellent work undertaken by the rapporteur, Mrs Petersen. What is the way to implement those very technical changes – which are in fact huge in scale – as quickly as possible? We must remember that we are elected just once every five years, but the car industry holds an election every day. Consumers vote with their wallet every day, and people’s awareness of safety matters should not be underrated. Today they are insisting on safe cars and also that cars should be safe for pedestrians. We especially must not get ourselves caught up in an EEVC test, good though it may be in itself, because developments are happening very fast. What will we have to offer in terms of technology in two, three or four years’ time? We should not let ourselves get bogged down in the framework defined today and I give my utmost support to the Commission’s proposal, as well as Mrs Petersen’s work to reach a compromise, and I would just briefly like to say this: even Olof Palme would have been satisfied with the work that we have done here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Group of the I should like to express my satisfaction with the work that has been carried out by our committees, and in particular by the rapporteurs, Mr Harbour and Mr Medina Ortega. Thanks to this work, the draft regulations drawn up by you, Commissioner, now constitute, together with the amendments which I hope you will accept, a balanced whole which should give the staff of our institutions regulations which bring together both tradition and modernity. Tradition is important, because we are very attached to the idea of preserving the great principles of a civil service which is independent of lobbies or other influences, a civil service which is competent and is recruited through objective and rigorous competitions, and a civil service which has rights and duties that are absolutely clear. We are also in favour of modernity, however. After more than thirty years of good and loyal service, the staff regulations for the European Civil Service were in need of serious reform. Having said that, every innovation has to be assessed in the light of the objectives being sought. For example, the use of a new category of staff, namely contract staff, however useful it may be, must not lead to the abuse of this formula, because that would run the risk of weakening recruitment conditions and would undermine the workings of our institutions. Moreover, although we can congratulate ourselves on the equilibrium that we have succeeded in reaching, it is still important that the Council should not disrupt this fragile equilibrium. My concern follows the Council’s reactions, in particular, to two important questions which are marginal to the regulations but which the Council wants to add to them in order to make an overall package. These two questions are, on the one hand, the multi-annual salary adaptation method and, on the other hand, and most important, the pension scheme. On this last point we are rather concerned, Commissioner, because we are seeing the Council link the adoption of the regulations to the adoption of a new pension scheme, whereas you yourself have not yet said anything precise about pensions, and we know how explosive this issue is. This is why several groups, including ours, have tabled an oral question about pensions, so that you can give us the information that we need before we give the definitive green light to the reform of the staff regulations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the matter addressed by Mrs Klamt’s truly excellent report is one of the most burning and ever growing issues of our time, to which a solution must urgently be found. Of course, the Commission’s initiatives, especially the activities to increase awareness, should not be underestimated but unfortunately they are proving to be inadequate since the sexual exploitation of children and child tourism are continually assuming greater dimensions, not only in ‘traditional’ underdeveloped countries but within the European Union itself. We therefore urgently need an integrated and cohesive Community policy on children and it is really sad – as others too have said – that the Treaty of Amsterdam does not provide the necessary legal base. Yet, the provision for the creation of a new area of freedom, security and justice in the immediate future, which presupposes police and judicial cooperation in combating international organised crime, reinforces our hopes of a more effective approach to those circles which both supply and demand child sex services. For that reason, it is vital to include the rights of children, exactly as they are laid down by the UN Convention of 20 November 1989, in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights which is currently being drawn up. We also need legislation which is binding on an extra-territorial scale, to punish culpable acts perpetrated abroad, with strict provisions for the prosecution of travel agencies and haulage companies which promote the abomination of child sex tourism. We need more resources for the implementation of specific schemes, and we need closer cooperation between the Commission and the tourism industry to define codes of ethics. We should look towards the good example set by Sweden. Finally, we must also act to protect and support children who are victims of sexual exploitation, and young refugees and immigrants who are a particularly vulnerable group. In summary, I think we need a common front and a common strategy at three levels. Firstly, at the level of awareness, secondly, at the level of suppression, and thirdly, in the direction of protection and rehabilitation of victims.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, we have never done anything like this before and I welcome the opportunity to open this debate. In normal, run-of-the-mill circumstances when we have the budget debate, we have already voted on first readings in committee, we come to the Chamber and most of us make a three-minute speech if we are lucky or, if not, a one and a half minute speech. What is more, they are statements and nothing is really gained because the work has already been done. What we are trying to gain from this session is a real dialogue, mainly with the Commission, but also with the Council, to seek guidance on how we should vote next week and to ask questions concerning events since the preliminary draft budget (PDB) was first presented. Since the PDB several things have happened, including the Council's vote on its draft budget which is what we vote upon. Our committees have been working with the rapporteurs to ensure that we can bring forward sensible amendments. As always, the amendments in front of us always exceed the amount of money that is available. It is the job of both our rapporteurs to assess those amendments. No doubt during the debate you will be asked questions concerning what you think of some of those amendments. We also have the situation of a more precise legislative programme since the PDB and we need to assess the changes. We have had external events such as the floods and we want to know how these will affect next year's budget. From our own perspective there are areas where we are unclear on how things will be funded. For instance, we still have no agreement with the Council or the Commission on how the EUR 27 million in Category 2 for the fisheries reconstruction programme will be found. Maybe someone will ask about that and if there are any ideas we will be grateful to hear them. A prime objective of the Development Committee is to ensure that the Global Health Fund has a significant amount of money. One of the reasons for this is that if we do not put in significant amounts the European Union may not have a seat at the table – a seat on the board. Is that true? What amounts do we need? I would hope that this issue will also be raised with the Commission so we can have guidance on it. With those few opening remarks, let me thank not only the Commission in general but also the individual Commissioners who are going to contribute to this debate. I would also like to thank the President-in-Office for being here. I hope the debate will be useful, fruitful and influence our votes next week in committee, because if it does not we will all have wasted four hours of our time.

Political group: PSE