GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would like to thank our rapporteur Mr Karas. He has had a very challenging task to streamline the measures of coordination. I fully welcome the efforts of the Commission in this respect and I want to thank our Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou, for your courage in proposing these items. I do not want to be the black sheep of the House today, but I think that we should also be critical when it comes to expanding methods of open coordination to different areas. In the report, Parliament says that we have two items which are important. If you look at paragraph (e) in the Karas report – I will read an extract from the paragraph: ‘Whereas a better streamlined review of implementation in the form of a new implementation package requires information on the implementation of policies agreed on Europe leading to an evaluation of implementation in the relevant policy areas’. This is a text from the report and it shows that, for Parliament, implementation of present coordination mechanisms is really important. We have not seen enough concrete results from the coordination mechanisms and we need concrete results. The other worry of Parliament concerns the role of Parliament and you can see from all of the reports that our role as a parliament, as a representative of the citizens, is very worrying for us. In the working group of economic governors in the Convention of which I was a member, we had a majority of members who thought that the European Parliament and the European Commission should have a role to play and that the methods of open coordination and processes should be included in the Constitutional Treaty. Unfortunately, I was in the minority in this working group, because I think that the main aim of the open method of coordination is to be flexible, and that it should not be in the Treaty. We should use the current mechanisms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to remind Members of the House of Rule 9(2), referring to Annex I, Article 1: 'Before speaking in Parliament or in one of its bodies, any Member who has a direct financial interest in the subject under debate shall disclose this interest to the meeting orally.' In view of the fact that Mr Lehne proposes to strengthen the role of company directors, it is quite obvious that Members may want to declare that before speaking. It does not stop them from speaking; it may not affect our rapporteur; but certainly it applies to some members of his group who hold senior positions in the Bertelsmann media group.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to follow on from what you just said, a very good morning. Perhaps this is also a sign of the new start which we are planning with the sixth research framework programme. My thanks also to the rapporteur. I do not say that merely as a courtesy because I think we have worked well together and have basically followed the rapporteur's line and I should like to make a point of thanking her for her initiative. As far as these rules of participation are concerned, I would like to say that we have put a great deal of responsibility on the Commission and demanded a great deal from it. I do not envy the Commission its task, because it will be no easy matter to implement the sixth research framework programme; you only have to think of the provision requiring the Commission to give reasons for any decision rejecting a proposal. That is one of our old demands, but with several tens of thousands of projects, it places an enormous responsibility on the Commission. If it succeeds here, my hat off to it, because this is certainly one reason why many people are still just as enthusiastic about taking part in the European research programme. But it will not be easy. The main difficulty with this sixth research framework programme is that so many Member States are taking part in it – fifteen Member States, plus the countries which want to join the European Union, plus the countries in the European Economic Area, plus Israel and, in the future, Switzerland too. In other words, there are a great many participants and 'managing' them, by which I mean implementing the research framework programme properly, will be no easy task. I also understand why it wants to encourage projects, networks of excellence, integrated projects etc. which are as big as possible and presumably this will also be the future of the European research programme. However, this means that other, mainly smaller projects will increasingly need to be taken over by the Member States and the regions, leading to a stricter division of labour between the European Union and the Member States. I am absolutely delighted that the matter of the two-stage procedure has been described in greater detail. I expect this two-stage procedure to lighten the load somewhat, depending on how it is implemented. The Commission has a certain amount of experience here and I trust it will be able to improve on it. The faster we implement the sixth research framework programme, the more money we shall save. Parliament has made its contribution, and there is a consensus in favour. The thing now is to hand out the money as quickly as possible and I wish you every success in doing so, Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, although in my view there are still many negative points regarding the substance of the text, I consider that we are enabling the discussion process on this important subject to continue with a legislative act, with the rejection of the Commission procedure without codecision, and with very clear signals regarding the rejection of liberalisation in some sectors and we are introducing a sound evaluation process, so I am voting in favour. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0474/2003) by Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the Commission communication on the update of the EC Programme for Action: accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction; outstanding policy issues and future challenges (COM(2003) 93 – 2003/2146(INI)) Before the vote on Recital L:

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of my colleague, Mrs Carmen Cerdeira, who has been the shadow rapporteur for this report and who regrets that she cannot be here today, I would like to explain the position of the Socialist Group. You know – and I would like to give you an example – that more and more people within the European Union are crossing the borders of their States. In 1999, 250 million people did so. This situation means that citizens who are moving around run the risk of becoming victims of crime both inside and outside the territory of their States of residence, and this may be anything from robbery to, on occasions, terrorist crimes, a scourge which still strikes cruelly within the European Union. There is no doubt that this Green Paper and the reports we are approving today represent progress in terms of removing the physical national borders in relation to the victims of crime. We must ensure that within the Union’s area of freedom, security and justice the citizens are given genuine access to justice so that they may benefit from adequate legal protection in any part of the Union’s territory. For this reason, the Europe of the citizens does not make sense unless we first adopt, amongst others, the necessary measures to improve and take account of the rights of the victims of crime as well, seen from a global perspective. Any person, including third-country nationals, who has been a direct or indirect victim of a crime in the territory of any Member State of the Union must receive the same minimum level of treatment. The European Union cannot accept that a person may receive different treatment depending on the Member State within which they have been a victim of crime or depending on their nationality. My group believes that compensating victims is a fundamental aspect which must be at the heart of European cooperation in the fight against crime. I welcome the Commission’s report and also the report by Mrs Angelilli, whom I congratulate on her attitude and availability. I believe that all the groups will be more or less in agreement with this report. I would just like to mention a few of the points which we believe to be fundamental and which we would like to express our support for: the principle of non-discrimination included in paragraph 13; support for non-governmental organisations which work with victims on a daily basis; the conditions for dealing with and attending to victims, as I said earlier; the harmonisation of systems for compensating victims, established by the Member States, taking account of levels of income; the guarantee that all citizens and legal residents can receive compensation when they have been victims of crime, according to Community criteria. We therefore support the creation of a European body for victims, the creation of a European fund to guarantee the corresponding compensation of the victims of crimes and, of course, the establishment of harmonised forms in all the languages of the Union. I believe that we will thereby have a proposal which represents a genuine step forward.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, since there is a very large measure of agreement in this House over the fundamentals of policy towards the ECB, I would like to address one specific measure which we have in the draft resolution, which we have requested before without receiving a formal response from the Governing Council in the Annual Report, and I hope this will be rectified. It is the issue of publishing the balance of votes on an anonymous basis, so that the markets and Parliament can assess the shift of opinion over time. You, Mr Duisenberg, have raised objections in the past to such a move, because the Governing Council tends to decide by consensus. I was glad that you indicated to us in committee that you would reconsider this over time. I hope that you will decide to take decisions by majority voting, both because this would lead to more efficient decision-making and because you are asked to do so in the Treaties. I would like to make it clear that I do not share the criticism over the last year that the ECB has acted too little and too late. In fact the ECB first cut interest rates in May 2001 despite a continuing rise in inflation, which had still to peak at 3.4%. You have honoured your monetary reference values only in the breach, and in 26 out of 41 months you have allowed inflation to exceed your target range. This is a pragmatic institution. However, we know from the Council of Ministers that voting by consensus, in other words by unanimity, is slower and more difficult than voting by majority. For this reason alone, it would be sensible for the ECB in future to vote by majority. The fact that present procedures have not led to mistakes is not an argument against improving them, particularly when this is what the Treaty requires. Article 10 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks clearly states that the Governing Council shall act by a simple majority. Therefore, I hope that the Governing Council will also note its Treaty obligations in the manner of its decision-taking by majority.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the future of this European Union of ours is dependent to a crucial degree on its acceptance by the public, and this is something we must always bear in mind when proposing regulatory schemes. That is why I advocated leaving the regulation of travel restrictions to the Member States. Appropriate measures relating to restrictions at weekends or on public holidays should really be taken by the Member States, as it is these that are best suited to responding to special circumstances. The Member States should generally be allowed to impose limitations from the outset for environmental and safety reasons, and it is imperative that geographical considerations be taken into account. What should, though, be seen in a positive light, is the reference to the special case represented by the transportation of easily perishable foodstuffs such as milk, fruit or vegetables.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, thank you for your answer. However, I asked this question because we are rightly concerned that the report on the third framework programme for research contains a project entitled ‘International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor’. This project amounts to several billion ecus and areas eligible for Structural Funds, such as those listed in Objective 1, might welcome this type of installation. We would like to know whether the Commission would be likely to finance this type of project in terms of the installation of this research site rather than directly in the specific ‘nuclear research’ context. You did not fully answer the last part of my question on large-scale energy transmission networks. Could you please give an answer on this issue?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, like everybody else in the Chamber, I welcome this directive. For too long now we have operated on the polluter pays principle, but what has the polluter paid in the past? The polluter has paid a small fine which never bears any resemblance to the actual clear-up costs of a site. It is high time that we got round to not 'the polluter pays', but 'the polluter restores the site'. That is what this directive sets out to do. However, the directive, as amended by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, is a weak directive at the moment. We have left it unclear, we have left it vague. I will point out some areas in which we have done that. The definition of biodiversity is a very weak and very vague description. It gives no comfort to the operators, no comfort to the environmental organisations and no comfort to the general public. That is why I support the compromise amendment put forward by my own group, the and the . Another point which the directive, as amended by the Legal Affairs Committee, has failed to address is that of mandatory financial insurance. As it is formulated at the moment, it will allow bad operators to continue to be bad operators. If they fall foul of the law they will go into insolvency. Who will pick up the cost of that? It will be the general public. It will pick up the bill for restoring the site and operators will walk away once more. We cannot allow that to happen. Again, I urge people to look at the compromise coming from the three groups that I mentioned earlier. On the question of permit defences, again, a full permit defence could be seen as a licence to pollute. We must not allow that. We must look at giving Member States and the courts the power to intervene if they believe that there has been pollution by somebody with a permit defence. My group, and the European Parliamentary Labour Party, has some difficulty with the question of GMOs, not because we are against GMOs but because we think this legislation might weaken existing GMO legislation. Therefore we will be asking for a split vote on one of the amendments.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we had a debate in Strasbourg on the Stability and Growth Pact as long ago as 21 October 2002. Even then, I made it plain that there was no argument against limiting states’ new public indebtedness, provided that this was coupled with the requirement that growth be generated and demand stimulated. Growth and an increase in demand will not, however, be achieved by cutting wages or by longer working hours, but by taking the tax burden off the low and middle income groups, through public investment, capital-widening investment by businesses and by increasing private consumption. The decision by the eurozone finance ministers to put the Excessive Deficit Procedure against Germany and France on ice and grant these states a reprieve, allowing them until 2005 to achieve the 3% limit for new annual indebtedness is a lazy compromise, one that does not alter the false basic premise, according to which, in economically tough times, strict adherence to the 3% limit has an expansionary rather than a contractionary effect. In order to reinvigorate investment across the board, any reform of the Stability Pact must go hand in hand with more European economic, social, employment, fiscal and environmental policies. It must be possible to use loans to fund public investment, even if this does, for a period, take the deficit over the 3% limit. Such would be, in my judgment, an honest and proper course of action, without which we would lose all credibility and the same problem would rear its head in more countries every year. You may think otherwise, but my view is that we should correct mistakes rather than try to cover them up with new ones.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I refer to the Boogerd-Quaak report for which, moreover, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has been convened today for 7 p.m. Before Easter, Mr President, I wrote to you to submit a series of points that, from a procedural and regulatory point of view, do not seem to me to be in line with our Rules of Procedure. I cited your responsibility as President, pursuant to Rule 19(2) on checking the conformity of reports with our Rules of Procedure. Specifically – and here I am also speaking on behalf of Mr Gemelli, who could not be here today but who I know wrote to you last week – the Committee on Petitions was not even consulted, that is to say it was not asked for an opinion on the report. We are clear about the lack of a legal basis and yet we have a genuinely unique situation whereby significant reference is being made, in this report, to a study document drawn up by a third party not authorised according to the standard procedures for our Parliament. It is a document which, moreover, claims to be entirely provisional since the situation has only been examined in eight out of 25 countries and since the comparisons that are due to be carried out at the end of June have not been completed. This is why, Mr President, I wonder how this report can be debated in this sitting and I ask you, therefore, to refer it back to the competent committee in order that the Committee on Petitions can make its substantial contribution. I would like to mention that this is not a responsibility of the House. Checking the appropriateness according to the Rules of Procedure is the responsibility of the person presiding over the institution, and is not in any way subject to a majority vote. You understand that at the basis of democracy, and even more so for a Parliament that is the ultimate embodiment of democracy, it is inconceivable that obligations provided for by the Rules of Procedure should be avoided by using majority voting. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in addition to being an evil perpetrated against the civilian population, the sanctions may, if maintained over a long period, turn into a harmful political tool and rebound upon those who impose them. Now, Colin Powell says that the US administration is considering a system of sanctions which will hit the Iraqi regime rather than the Iraqi people. These last few days have nonetheless served as a reminder that this is precisely what President Bush senior said ten years ago when the theory was floated that, thanks to the sanctions, the tyrant of Baghdad would be overthrown by his own people. With a few exceptions, the Arab states nowadays share the position of those countries that are more concerned about the risk of extending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than about applying sanctions against Iraq, as well as the position of those other countries which wish to resume relations with Baghdad. And all this exactly coincides with the new Anglo-American bombing. Frankly, I believe that, with the increasing bombing of Iraq, comes the further radicalisation of what is already radicalised public opinion in both the Arab states and Palestine. We should also remember that, at the same time, a favour is being done to Saddam who – at least according to a particular conception of morality and politics – is being morally and politically strengthened both within his own country and in the opinion of the majority of Arabs. This may lead to Arab public opinion’s being characterised by a growing sense that Arabs are enduring a war on two fronts: on the one hand, the United States against Iraq and, on the other hand, Israel against Palestine. I hope that such public opinion does not believe that there is an Anglo-American war against Iraq. In conclusion, I should like to say that it is not only in the Arab countries that the West is considered to be responsible for the prolonged suffering of Iraqi children. Many in the West, including myself, think the same.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the , I must add my voice to those of my colleagues who have expressed their grief at the truly perverse and cruel outrage which has occurred in the Basque Country. We send our condolences to the families of the victims and emphatically condemn these acts which have been going on for so long and which must stop. The terrorist organisation ETA has, in its time, killed police officers and soldiers. It has placed a bomb in a supermarket and killed men, women and children. In the streets of Madrid it has killed a general, Quintana Lacaci, who defended democracy at the time of the attempted coup of 1981. It has assassinated the spokesman of the Popular Party in the town council of San Sebastián, Gregorio Ordóñez. It has been to the lecture room of the university professor in Constitutional Law, Francisco Tomás y Valiente, and killed him in cold blood. Now, just a few days ago, in the same odious way in which it assassinated Admiral Blanco, it has killed the MP and spokesman in the Vitoria parliament, Fernando Buesa, and his bodyguard, Jorge Díez, of the Basque police force. ETA must be condemned. However, those who support and express understanding for these attacks must also be condemned. There is no point continuing to ask these people and organisations to go down the democratic road. We must appeal to the whole of society and particularly to the democratic parties, whether they are national or nationalist, and no matter how pro- or anti-European they are. It is regrettable that there are organisations and people who are saying nothing or simply regretting the deaths as if they were the result of a road traffic accident. All in this House must join together to send a message to the Basque Country that it is time to put an end to the division and killing. It is time to share the Basque Country, Spain and Europe. This, Madam President, is the only way forward which we therefore fully support. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, like everyone else, I welcome this report. We should not underestimate the significance of the step forward that we will take tomorrow when we vote on it in Parliament. It will bring all the EU countries into compliance with the Cartegena Protocol and enable them to go forward and ratify it. The ratifications will bring the protocol into force. There would then be further countries of the world quickly coming forward to ratify it, to ensure that they are present next April at the first conference of the parties that will turn the Cartegena Protocol into a reality in terms of an international trading system. I welcome that. It is an excellent step forward. It demonstrates how we can introduce the new technology of genetic modification. We can control it, use it, put the products in the market place and give people choices, wherever they are in the world, whether they are rich or poor. I welcome this report because it will show us a way forward. There remains only one last piece in the jigsaw of legislation within the EU needed to implement the proper control and use of GMOs, which is the traceability in labelling legislation that we hope to bring before Parliament next month. This is a pragmatic and sensible way forward. This is a way in which we can use these new technologies and implement them to the benefit of all. I hope we can take lessons from what we do tomorrow when we deal with further legislation next month.

Political group: PSE