GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, the truth is that I composed this question in May and when I learnt that the proceedings had been opened I considered withdrawing it, but, before I had done so, something happened which led me to change my mind. That was a disproportionate attack against me by the President of the region, Mr Zaplana, for having put this question. And that is not acceptable, Commissioner. When, in the face of innocent questions which are simply intended to clear up issues which the government of the Generalitat were hiding, there is a violent reaction, that means that there is more to this than meets the eye and I therefore urge you, Commissioner, to have your services vigorously investigate, removed from the political pressure they are no doubt going to be placed under, what is behind this: tax benefits, the granting of guarantees or, what seems to me more serious, the creation of infrastructures financed with European funds to the exclusive benefit of a private company. The truth is that the leaders of my Autonomous Community are such peculiar liberals that they propose that hospitals and schools should be private, while the public sector is busy building merry-go-rounds and amusement parks.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have been in this House for some time now and even before I was elected in 1994 I worked here. I remember, for example, the last Italian Presidency and the one before that, amongst others. On those occasions, the Council spent the night here and Question Time was held in the night sitting. I just wish to remind us of this. Out of consideration for the Council we subsequently moved Question Time to the afternoon, with the result that it has not worked since. I really would like to make a plea for Question Time to be moved back to the night sitting, enabling the Council to spend the night here in Strasbourg in the future – there may still be the odd hotel room available. It is a beautiful city and I think that for the six months concerned it would not be too inconvenient for representatives of the Council Presidency to spend a night here from time to time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, transport safety is an area in which combined efforts on the part of the EU countries can save thousands of lives. We in Europe enjoy high levels of air safety but the growth in traffic continually obliges us to take more effective action. I would however say, regarding this, that it is incomprehensible and even disgraceful that this proposal has not been made until now and was not put forward ten years ago. In fact nations have been going their own way and politicising at the expense of human life. National pride must make way for rational cooperation. An Aviation Safety Agency could also be an example of EU integration at its best, provided that the pitfalls of bureaucracy are avoided. In this we should learn from the United States of America, where they trust in people. The concentration of information and harmonisation of standards are essential for the prevention of accidents, but regulations should not normally be tightened up only after accidents have occurred; instead, there should be a systematic analysis of present and future risks. That, again, will not succeed unless all the Member States have the same tools at their disposal. Our world is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, although this Chamber might not always be willing to admit it. The Aviation Safety Agency should make decisions that apply to the world as a whole, whenever that is possible. We should also support Article 2E proposed by the Council, as nothing good ever comes from enforced decisions. Incidentally, I think that Parma would be a suitable location for the Aviation Safety Agency. Parma’s excellent food, such as its ham, would guarantee the contentment of the authorities working there and, hopefully, some equally mature decisions for air safety and the private individual in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate enables us to stand back a little from the events in Tunisia of the last few weeks, and gain some perspective, particularly with regard to what has become known as the Ben Brik affair. There has been particularly widespread coverage of these events in the media, and this has, let there be no doubt about it, enabled pressure to be put on the Tunisian authorities to remedy the situation as quickly and as humanely as possible. The huge media coverage of the affair, however, has also led to some people assuming that it reflects the situation in Tunisia as a whole, which runs quite counter to the facts and the reality with which we are familiar. As my friend and colleague, Mr Hernández Mollar, pointed out, the EPP hopes that, today, we will be able to give a message of hope and support to all Tunisians who are committed to their country pursuing the path of political as well as economic reform. The European Parliament has a duty to act fairly and straightforwardly with all the Mediterranean countries that are part of the Barcelona Process. We are sometimes criticised – particularly in Tunisia – for treating some countries more harshly than others, and on this issue, I should like to point out that the principles and the values contained in the Barcelona Declaration, and reiterated in every partnership agreement with a Mediterranean country, are the same for all countries, including Member States of the Union. Tunisia is not being treated differently in any way. This message of hope is founded, in part, upon the economic and social achievements that we have seen Tunisia make. We must, however, also respect our commitments and our convictions, and I think that we would be doing Tunisians a favour by convincing them that our Parliament will always pay close attention to developments in the political situation and in civil society in their country, regardless of the good economic results that may have been achieved. We must also persuade all of our Mediterranean partners that the commitments which they have given through taking part in the Barcelona process, specifically in the field of democracy and human rights, are not negotiable. Finally, then, I would urge all Members to staunchly support the motion for a resolution that we have tabled today, which, I think, provides a balanced picture of Parliament’s views on the situation in Tunisia. I have no doubt that this message will be received in the appropriate way by the Tunisian authorities, who will step up and continue the initial measures that they have already adopted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, one of the questions I asked referred to your statement that all resistance in Iraq is terrorism. I believe that, at the very least, you should answer this question, because I believe it is profoundly relevant.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, parallel to that point of order could it be also borne in mind that the interpreters are very kind to us and sometimes they do not translate 'my machine failed to work' as 'I failed to work'.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteurs on this report. They rightly assume that we need a proper partnership between Europe and the USA. And partnership means that both partners have equal rights, although they need not and perhaps should not be identical. For example, we have different concepts of security and security risks. We place greater emphasis on the economic, social and ecological aspects of security and security risks and we need to introduce this into the debate. But we Europeans must admit that security does not come cheap and that perhaps we need to spend even more in order to achieve it. However, it would be a mistake to say that we need the same level of military spending as the United States of America. No, what we need most of all is more efficient spending. What we need is more efficient civil spending which accounts for a higher and probably more significant – by which I also mean materially significant – proportion. And that will only happen if we move towards common European defence structures. I hope that Mr Elles is willing to move with us in this direction and create common European defence structures one step at a time.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in that case may I again ask the House to vote to refer the report back to committee. (Parliament decided to refer the second part of the report to committee) *** Report (A5-0116/2000) by Mr Bösch, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the 1998 annual report by the European Commission on protecting the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud (COM(1999) 590 – C5-0058/2000 – 2000/2032(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution)(1) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTES - Rothley report (A5–0130/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I initially assented to an addition, but since the word ‘conditions’ has been added here to the added texts, I do not think that this is the proposal that we discussed yesterday. I am therefore against the submission of this oral amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party in the European Parliament has abstained from voting in favour of the overall report because we are unable to support Article 5(1) of the Commission’s proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European transport situation can be summed up using several pertinent figures. Between 1990 and 1997 the volume of transport of goods increased by 21% whilst over the same period the proportion of freight transported by rail dropped by 7%. During the same period, passenger transport increased by 15% and rail transport by only 3%. In terms of both freight and passenger transport European integration has been a considerable factor of mobility, but the roads have been the major beneficiaries of this particularly, but not exclusively, due to the fact that they have been frontier free since the beginning of the 1990s. European railways therefore need to open up urgently and without fear. Their future lies largely in their own hands, however, it is also our job to give them every opportunity to achieve their aims. Railway workers must rise to the challenge of opening up international networks to trains from all countries in the European Union. The decision taken by the fifteen Ministers for Transport in December 1999 to set plans in motion for the creation of a Trans-European Freight Network that represents 94% of the international freight transport came as a direct response to this challenge. It is entirely logical to adapt national rail legislation to this new system that lays down rules governing access, pricing policy and standard and consistent management practices within the European Union. The Swoboda report contains commendable proposals regarding the need to adapt legislation to the various national situations. On the other hand, it is wholly unacceptable and, what is more, contradicts Parliament’s first reading, for us to take advantage of this second reading – as the Jarzembowski report suggests – to announce measures to open up all networks to competition and others designed for the widespread privatisation of such networks at national and local level, as that stems from a dogma, an untested belief in the superiority of a market model that has clearly demonstrated its limitations in the United Kingdom. Several moments ago, I stated that the future of rail transport also depended on us, and I should also like to point out the fact that the dogmatic approach that we appear to have adopted in this matter threatens its very success. Everyone here is aware that rail integration in Europe cannot be reduced to a theological debate on the comparative merits of controlled liberalisation and uncontrolled privatisation. Railways, which only receive 25% of the investment allocated to transport infrastructure in Europe, as opposed to the 65% allocated to roads, are in need of substantial investment in order to enhance interoperability, reduce bottlenecks, extend networks and integrated transport systems, etc. The United Kingdom has demonstrated to what extent privatisation can represent a step backwards. This is why we believe that our work should not threaten the delicate balance of the Council’s common position.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you are appearing before the European Parliament with a proposal which demonstrates that the European Commission has failed in relation to managing the common fisheries policy. It now proposes that this failure should be paid for by the sector, not the whole sector, but rather the fishermen of the Mediterranean countries, who fish for human consumption, not for the manufacture of meal, who have made the greatest sacrifices in recent years by constantly reducing their fleet and who are now bearing the cost of this proposal. A cost, by the way, which your colleague responsible for the budget wants nothing to do with. So where are you going to get the EUR 240 million you need to incentivise the scrappings between 2003 and 2006? Are you going to get them from the Structural Funds? I would like to remind you of a figure produced by your own services. Between 1996 and 2000, Spain, for example, was obliged to reduce its fleet by 88 000 tonnes, and during that same period, Denmark, for example, increased its fleet, thanks to Community aid, by 64 000 tonnes. These figures come from your services. Do you intend to reassure the sector by saying that the fishermen of Spain and Portugal, after 17 years of waiting, will have access to the fishing grounds of the North Atlantic? That is guaranteed in the Act of Accession which, so far, the European Commission cannot modify. The Commissioner mentioned differences within the Commission, which he described as normal; what is not normal is that there should be such a pronounced geographical division between the three institutions. And since the World Cup is about to start, we could say that the score according to your proposal, Mr Commissioner, is ‘the North 1 – the South 0’, but we are at the beginning of the match and we hope that you will be a fair and unbiased referee. That is the important thing. What are trivial are certain speeches we heard at the beginning of this debate, which put domestic political interests before the future of thousands of families in Galicia or Andalusia, which is quite simply disgraceful, and I regret that the people or person who said that are absent. There is no institutional crisis here, but a personal crisis, a crisis of attitudes, a crisis which suggests that those who speak in this way will be in opposition for many years, to the benefit of everybody and in particular the fishermen of my country.

Political group: PPE-DE
With regard to this programme, I have voted against the proposal to ‘develop a specific action to promote, by means of public awareness/information campaigns, an improved diet and eating habits which are better suited to the needs of the human body’ at European level. The European Union must concentrate on its main tasks – promoting peace and democracy, human rights, free trade and initiatives for improving the environment. This is the only way for our cooperative venture to win public support and understanding and gain legitimacy among our citizens. Otherwise, the EU project will still principally be seen as centralising decision-making among only a few people. This weekend will see discussions on the outline of future EU legislation/new instruments or treaties at the European Council at the Royal Palace of Laeken in Brussels. Here, it is more important than ever for the European Parliament to show the political maturity and discipline required not to demand new policy measures at European level, but instead to rally around the central joint undertakings. It is vital that the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, is actually applied. A body wholly independent of the EU institutions, the European Court of Justice, should be given the authority to monitor adherence to and respect for the principle of subsidiarity, in order to ensure that more powers are not transferred to European level. This certainly does not include the centralised implementation of a uniform Europe-wide campaign for ‘an improved diet and eating habits’ involving all the various cultures, eating habits and tastes that characterise the 370 million citizens of the EU Member States. Let taste, culture and lifestyle remain different for Greeks, Spaniards, Swedes, British and Germans. Such diversity is a great asset. - Paulsen report (A5-0408/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall focus on the European programme on climate change. I fully and wholeheartedly agree with everything Mrs Anneli Hulthén has to say on this matter, but I do miss one aspect, namely communication with the citizen. Since the recent floods, the seriousness of any potential climate change is starting to strike home, but few are aware, let alone convinced, of the need for action. I would suggest three points that could facilitate communication with the citizen. First of all, I believe that the citizen must be given clear choices. Although Member States play an important role in this, the Commission can do a great deal to clarify the options. What is the implication, for example, of reducing the maximum speed on motorways to 100 km/hour? How much do we stand to gain? What does it mean if each house were to be fitted with a solar panel or use low-energy light bulbs? Are these merely drops in the ocean or do they make a substantial contribution? If the choices were clear, then citizens could become involved in the subject of climate. Policy on climate could then also become integrated in a climate strategy. Secondly, policy on climate should be placed much more in the context of development. Investing in sustainable energy is costly, but rewarding. At present, 2 billion people have no access to electricity. Sustainable energy is local and can give an enormous boost to development. We should not only send out this message in Johannesburg, but also in Brussels and Strasbourg, and preferably every day. Thirdly, a flagship is what is needed. Member States must invest jointly in the development of sustainable energy and energy efficiency. Something along the lines of the Airbus project. The Sixth Framework Programme for research and Article 169 offer good opportunities in this area. A flagship project is visible to the citizens and can play a key role in public awareness. Commissioner, in my view, there could be a little more enthusiasm for policy on climate. To date, we have mainly sent out a negative signal and a sombre message. More attention to communication and the political aspects could contribute to public involvement.

Political group: PSE
Ladies and gentlemen, in discussing Mr Musotto's report, we obviously want to express our concerns about the future of political cohesion in the Union, given that, if the gap between the rich and the poor is to narrow and they are to feel that they belong to the same European body, they need to converge economically and socially. Of course, our starting point is fundamentally contradictory. We want much greater enlargement, but without providing the corresponding funds and we invent lower and lower cohesion targets along the lines of 'if the mountain won't come to Mohammed, then let’s take Mohammed to the mountain'. Be that as it may, we face a very tricky problem and we are required to resolve it in less than optimum circumstances, while keeping up the fight to improve those circumstances. Obviously, we do not want a twin-track Europe, as previous speakers have stressed, but we want a multi-track Europe even less. So our objective must be to help the new regions where they need help, but without abandoning the old regions which also need help, when they need help. So I think we need to state that 0.45% is inadequate and that the Cohesion Fund and other Community initiatives need to keep functioning as they have done so far, given that they have proven to be extremely efficient. And of course we must take a very careful look at the future of political cohesion, in conjunction with the policy of sustainable development and agricultural policy. It is our duty here to avoid stop-gap, hasty solutions which might prove to be the undoing of our farmers, whom we need for the countryside, for the environment, for our very existence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have been a member of this Chamber for seven years and am now making my last speech because I shall be a candidate for the Swedish Parliament this autumn. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe constitute the most important issue in my political work. As rapporteur where Estonia is concerned, it feels good to be able to note that, finally, we shall now soon be there. Estonia, which has closed 26 of 31 chapters, has fulfilled all the necessary conditions for becoming a member of the EU in 2004. Estonia shows how quickly a country which has freed itself from a long occupation and has restored democracy has also succeeded in completely reorienting its policies and building up a strong, market-oriented economy with well functioning institutions. The Estonian economy has produced fantastic results, and 4.5% growth is anticipated this year. The Estonian kroon has been tied to the Deutschmark and, subsequently, the euro for almost ten years. When Estonia joins the EU, I hope that the country will continue its work in favour of less bureaucracy and better basic conditions for businesses. Estonia also has a belief in the future and a capacity for change that are needed by the EU. During the Swedish Presidency, the Social Democratic Government spoke proudly of its timetable for enlargement. We do not, however, build the EU with plans alone. Timetables presuppose action. That is why it is disgraceful that Sweden is now putting the timetable at risk and making enlargement conditional upon agricultural policy. Agricultural policy is actually being reformed, albeit modestly, and it is important that there should be radical changes. As the Council representative pointed out, those countries which are now using the agricultural chapter to delay the work on enlargement are assuming a big responsibility. There can be nothing more important than that the EU honour its pledges and that the last chapter in the reunification of Europe be written in Copenhagen this autumn. I want to express my congratulations to all those who have the privilege of working in the EU’s different institutions and to express my thanks for some very close cooperation in the course of the last few years.

Political group: PPE-DE