GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I had not expected to speak today because I represent the south-east of England which is one of the more prosperous regions of England and of Europe. We pay the taxes that make up the grants that other areas receive. We have no Objective 1 funding. What Objective 2 funding we had has been reduced by the present government and the Conver Fund that used to be very helpful is now being phased out. So, why do I speak? Because even in the south-east of England there are pockets of deprivation. In particular I want to speak of the Isle of Wight, a beautiful island with 130 000 good people but 68% GDP per head of the European average – a very poor region. It gets no support from Europe. Why not? It does not get the grant from Europe because at NUTS II it is classified with Hampshire. Hampshire is a prosperous county – 100% of European average so, no money for the Isle of Wight. Yet, it has a population of 130 000, a bigger population than the Åland Islands which are NUTS II and do get grants from the European Union. The island has taken its case against the British Government that it feels is treating it unfairly, to the High Court in London. I think they might win that case. As far as Europe is concerned, on my advice, they took their case to the Ombudsman because we believed that EUROSTAT, by refusing to define the Isle of Wight as a separate NUTS II region, was treating the island unfairly. This week, in what I would say is a landmark ruling by the European Ombudsman, he has said that constitutes maladministration by EUROSTAT and by the European Commission. Let me read out his ruling: “In the present case the Commission has not provided the Ombudsman with elements which show that EUROSTAT, when deciding not to classify the Isle of Wight as a separate NUTS II region, has taken into account all relevant factors including Article 158 of the Treaty and the Viola report of the European Parliament”. He has recommended that the Commission and EUROSTAT should look again at this particular problem. I would ask the Commission to consider fairly this recommendation that has come from the Ombudsman so that I can go back to the people of the Isle of Wight and say that this issue will be looked at again, that they can expect the Commission to treat fairly the particular problems and concerns of the island. Then we can get in on this act of additionality and take up our fight with the British Government to make sure that we get support from Europe and from the British Government to treat fairly an island which to date has not been fairly treated either by the British Government or by the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
If I may put Mr Titford’s mind at rest, the Dutch Government is not following the United Kingdom’s example; it is in fact dealing with another problem, one with which we are also concerning ourselves today. On the one hand, it is very irritating that this House is virtually turning into a sort of House of Commons, in that we are now giving our attention solely to problems that are in fact not even specific to the UK, but are specifically English. That, of course, becomes very tiresome, especially for those participants in the debate who do not originate from that country. There is also the second problematic aspect, namely the legal cases referred to earlier: the Jaeger case and others. This is where I really do think that the Commission has not shown sufficient leadership. It ought to have been apparent that the combination of the interpretation of these legal acts and the existence of the opt-out would create difficulties and to the objectives of the directive being undermined. It waited a long time and gave what were in fact wholly inadequate answers as to what the solution might be. Not to mention such other things as, for example, the people who then think they too can use this for their own purposes by, contrary to what the directive intended, creating more difficulties. That can happen at any time and it is at that point that the whole thing starts to unravel. This is where I differ from many others in my belief that we have to be quick. The fact is that we have to give priority to dealing with the points that are relevant to hospitals, the fire service and a few more of the sort of things that are relevant not only to the United Kingdom; then we will be able to talk about the opt-out. That is, at the moment, still inadequately expressed in our report and it is certainly inadequately expressed in what the Commission is saying. It is still doing no more than creating options, which seems to indicate that we have a very long process ahead of us, but, at the time, all the Member States resolved to avail themselves of the opt-out, so you never know what is going to happen. In conclusion, I myself think an opt-out is always a sign of failure, of your inability to completely sort matters out, which is also the underlying problem here. I still think that we have to be looking for alternatives to the opt-out, but you cannot say that you cannot get rid of it unless you offer alternatives. If you have no alternative, you cannot say that the opt-out is wrong. You have to say, ‘the opt-out is wrong, but here are the alternatives to it’. That is what we actually have to work towards with this report. We will certainly have to aspire to it in the course of further consultation. First, though, we have to close the loophole in the directive as quickly as possible, or in the place where at least the Member States think it is. Then we will, in any case, have all the Member States behind us – with the exception of the United Kingdom, but including, I am sure, the Member States in Eastern Europe. We can then take a look at the last part of the second opt-out. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
I have not joined in the campaign for reform of the EP intending to make it more efficient, transparent and accountable. The purpose of the campaign, started by the Member, Mr van Hulten, is to abolish Strasbourg as a seat and Luxembourg as a venue. Hypocritically, Members of the European Parliament and candidates in the European elections are being asked to ‘make a commitment to increasing efficiency by seeking to end the dispersal of European Parliament facilities (...) and establishing a single seat in Brussels’. I eventually voted in favour of the report, after my group’s amendments had been accepted. Otherwise, I should not have been able to do so, since Mr van Hulten misused his report in order to adopt a position with respect to the seat of the EP, which is not within our remit. A survey of civil servants in Strasbourg and Luxembourg has shown that 95% are against moving to Brussels. Mr van Hulten totally ignores the difficulties which this project would cause for the families affected, not to mention the cost of this Umsiedlung, in terms of both money and productivity. I shall not be intimidated by this manoeuvring and this blackmail on the pretext of restoring the credibility of the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to focus on the progress Romania has made in terms of compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. I would like to highlight two issues. Firstly, I believe we should acknowledge that Romania is taking steps and making efforts to comply fully with these criteria. I regret that Commissioner Verheugen did not acknowledge this. As we all know, this does not mean that there are no more obstacles to overcome, but it is encouraging that those obstacles have been identified and that the Romanian authorities have taken measures to remove them. The fight against corruption, as the Commissioner mentioned, to guarantee the independence of the justice system – and fundamental legislative reforms, contained in the new Constitution, are underway in this regard – press freedom, the reform of public administration, etc. In this regard, I would like to say that some of the recommendations contained in the report by Mrs Nicholson, such as the publication of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, have been accepted favourably by the Romanian authorities and, therefore, I believe that paragraphs 17 and 18 have become obsolete. And, of course, of the remaining obstacles I must mention the protection of children in international adoptions. Secondly and finally, I would like to say that, while the adoption of concrete measures within the specific time limits is important, it is also important that all of these measures move unequivocally in the direction of full compliance with these criteria. This has been the approach taken by the ten States joining us on 1 May and the same approach must be taken in this case as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the founder of the European Parliament Friends of India group, this resolution is intended as a gesture of solidarity with the people and government of India against the mindless violence perpetrated by a small number of fanatics drawn from Islamic extremists. They believe the killing in Bombay with the bombing of innocents, including children and members of their own Muslim faith, to be justified and a way of destabilising the largest multicultural, democratic success story in the world. I also salute the professionalism of the authorities, not only in their early success in apprehending the suspects and hopefully eventually securing convictions, but, most of all, preventing an escalation of further inter-communal violence. I also welcome the response of the government of Pakistan, but it must crack down seriously if any evidence emerges of connections to Lashkar-e-Toiba and if any of its operations are shown to have been launched from Pakistani territory. However, I particularly welcome their condemnation of the bomb attack. It is essential that the political stability of India as a nuclear, regional superpower is upheld by all EU Member States and all other democratic nations of the world. India is a country in which all groups have reached the highest offices, as illustrated by its current President and Head of State, who is a Muslim. Within 20 years it will in terms of population be the largest country in the world, overtaking China. Terrorism is a negation of all the values of those who seek to build rather than destroy. This House condemns it everywhere, all over the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I do not see why the Conference of Presidents should make the decision. Surely it is up to all of us here at the plenary sitting to decide whether or not the vote should take place during this part-session, not the Conference of Presidents? We wish to decide right here, either today or tomorrow, whether the vote on this directive and this report should take place this week. We do not wish to leave the decision to the Conference of Presidents.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Group voted against in the final vote on the Langen report, because its members are not convinced that a framework directive on services of general interest (SGI) is a good idea. At least we want to wait for the Commission's reflections on the desirability and feasibility of a framework directive on SGIs before we insist on such a proposal. Another reason for our vote against is the ambiguous wordings on the need to stick to the Lisbon agenda. We found that the text was too watered down (for example in the votes pertaining to par. 33). Liberals also find that the report, through amendments both in committee and in plenary, had become too long, inconsistent and incoherent and that it therefore, unfortunately, no longer presented any added value to the debate on SGIs.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that this report, for which I would like to thank the rapporteur very sincerely, is a refinement of the Musotto report that we adopted at the beginning of the year. To be more precise, this report is about the direction Parliament wishes to go in. I am quite willing to admit that we have not totally achieved that, because there is still too much in this report, but I still think that it is a good one. All in all, I do not think the picture is as black as the rapporteur has painted it. In this report we have once again emphasised certain points that have already been identified, such as our rejection of any renationalisation of structural policy. We have also once again made it clear that regions currently benefiting from support will have to accept cuts; we do not want to pull the wool over anyone's eyes about this. However, we have also managed to clarify some points in this report. I disagree totally with the previous speaker on this, because I think it is very important for the Commission to make proposals at this stage about how it will move forward with Objective 2. People are waiting for a signal in Objective 2 regions too, and we cannot just concentrate on Objective 1 in our discussions. The same applies to Community initiatives. This is also an important area where we need to either clarify matters or at least identify a recognisable direction. How will the Community Action for Border Regions be continued? And how will action on cities move forward? And rural areas? I would like to stress two more points of great concern to me. One is that the programme must be scheduled to start so that funds are actually available on 1 January 2007, and, equally important, we need a more coherent approach, and in that regard we need to send a signal to the Commission that it should at long last achieve greater coherence between individual policy areas. My final point is this: I believe, and my group has also taken a decision to this effect, that for Objective 1 we should neither establish a fixed criterion nor a fixed percentage. We need to make a decision on the basis of concrete proposals, and the Commission is in the process of drawing something up.

Political group: PSE
Today I voted in favour of the Ferber report on “European postal services” because, given the current balance of power in Europe and within the European Parliament, we obtained as much as we could to prevent the total disappearance of public postal services in Europe! This took intense negotiations and the greatest possible rallying together at all levels, but as of today, the main part has been saved! Nevertheless, I must say quite seriously that this is as much as I can accept from a Europe which I feel to be too liberal! A framework directive on postal services in Europe must therefore be drawn up as quickly as possible, since the Nice Summit gave the “green light” to this project. Claude Desama is determined to see his proposal through to the bitter end. On this matter, too, we have reached a point at which all supporters of public service should find themselves. Through the Ferber report, we have shown that this is possible. Now we must actually do it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a day when we will be discussing democracy to the end, I rise on a matter of democracy within the European Union. It was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine last night that European Union citizens are being refused the right to register for their local elections. I will give you the example of Calvia, in the Balearic Islands, where they are obstructing EU citizens of many nationalities from registering to vote. It is particularly urgent because they only have until 31 March to register. I request therefore, on behalf of this House, that you either write to the necessary councils or at least look into the matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner Liikanen, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my Group, I would like to comment on the Alyssandrakis report on the Commission communication concerning radio spectrum policy. This communication and the report on the communication are amongst Parliament’s reports on the telecommunications sector, and they are all very closely linked. I could mention the report by Mrs Thors, which we are to vote on in the near future, and the reports by Mr van Velzen and Mr Paasilinna, who has just spoken, as well as that of Mr Alyssandrakis. I would like to take this opportunity to again express my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and those responsible within the groups, for the inter-group cooperation in this matter. Unlike grid-bound infrastructure, frequencies cannot be multiplied ad infinitum. As such, they should be treated as a special case. Radio spectrum policy is gaining in importance within the European Union, but also worldwide, in connection with new technologies – UMTS has been mentioned – but also in connection with the famous ‘making it through the last mile’, so as to create some movement in charges for local phone calls. The granting of licences – whether by auction or by ‘beauty contest’ – is regulated, and as previous speakers have mentioned, the United Kingdom has had first experience of this and results are now available. Mr Paasilinna and Mr Alyssandrakis made reference to this. Auctions can lead to high prices. It is also suspected in Germany that high prices are achieved at auction. Several of my colleagues in my Group are concerned because they suspect that the high figures achieved at auctions, plus the investment that has to be made in this sector, will inevitably lead to the overall cost being passed on to consumers. This may well be the case. However, one thing I would point out is that even when the average weighted rate of VAT was introduced, the first mobile phones were expensive, and the charges were very high. However, increasing market penetration brought the prices down. I believe we should appeal to the national governments to use the proceeds from the auctions held in these sectors for the implementation of the information society and for broadening the basis thereof in the Member States. This is a cue for me to mention the ‘Schools on-line’ or ‘Public administration and libraries on-line’ programme that we have called for repeatedly. I feel that the average EU citizen interested in using the Internet is bound to continue using PCs at home, in the library or in the office. I do not think they will be clamouring to be the first to use the UMTS equipment. In addition, the proceeds from the auctions will be able to ease the burden on Member States’ budgets, which will – and I am digressing slightly from our specialist technical subject now – give politics renewed power to act. As such, I believe the governments are quite justified in receiving the proceeds. I hope that my fellow delegates will endorse Amendment No 8 tabled by my Group. Unfortunately, we are unable to support any of the others.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, unlike Mr Chichester, I have no links with the strong Finnish theme in this report, except for the fact that I worked, with the greatest of pleasure, at the Commission under the authority of Commissioner Liikanen. Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for presenting this communication on the ‘forest-based industry’. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for accepting some of my amendments in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, even though he sees no need for Amendment No 5, which I presented. I would like to ask just one question, Mr President, which ties in precisely with Amendment No 5 and relates to the position of the publishing industry within the Commission services. I read in the press that, in November 2000, Commissioner Wallström acknowledged the fact that the publishing industry must not be regarded as belonging to the forest-based and related industries, as the place it now occupies within the European Commission might lead one to believe. Is this also the opinion of the Commission? If this is the case, what are its plans for the future?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I simply wish to say, on behalf of my group, that we are happy with this change to the agenda, since we believe that, furthermore, this change will allow the Danish Foreign Minister to be present at the debate, meaning that there will be participation on the part of the Council. With regard to the resolution, I agree with the concern expressed by Mr Barón, I support the comments of the High Representative for the CFSP and I would like to point out that the Brok report contains several paragraphs which express the position of this Parliament on the situation in the Near East.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the current situation in which cases of BSE in the European Union are multiplying makes it clear that it is not enough to make declarations of intent with regard to the reform of the CAP. We need to get to the root of the problem and move rapidly towards a genuine reform of the current common agricultural policy. Budgetary and Community constraints cannot be used as an excuse for not adopting the necessary measures to solve the problem, and, at the same time, we must support livestock breeders. The aim of the CAP reform that we need to implement must not be to make budgetary savings but to achieve balance in the distribution of assistance amongst producing countries and productions, taking account of specific regional requirements and the situation of each Member State. New resources must be found for new requirements and so it is becoming necessary to conduct a review of the current financial framework that was decided on in Berlin. Finally, I wish to mention Portugal, in order to ask the Commissioner to explain the unfairness of maintaining this particular ban on exports in an area in which there has been a significant reduction in cases, whilst in other countries, they are continually increasing. This position is illogical.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to support you on behalf of the Socialist Group, while pointing out that we have fought bravely with the groups in this House, in the desire to include the right to strike in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and for this Charter to be incorporated into the European Constitution. From this point of view, we respect the exercise of the right to strike. But we also appeal to the responsibility of the workers of Parliament’s administration to in turn respect the event taking place today. We therefore believe, Mr President, that we must continue with our agenda at this historic moment. (Applause)

Political group: PSE