GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would sincerely like to thank my colleague, Rolf Linkohr, for his commendable work in this important matter. There is consensus in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy regarding the fact that research funding in the EU should be increased significantly and promptly. Thus, on the threshold of enlargement it would be good to come up with some clear figures in addition to all the fine words. The final sum for the Seventh Framework Programme has to be EUR 30 billion. A smaller investment will not bring the same benefit. One of Europe’s weaknesses has been insufficient SME involvement in research. Statistical illusion also has a part in this. The most important tool in Europe to achieve the 3% target is companies and in particular SMEs. At present, companies are doing much innovative work that is not statistically recorded at all as Research and Development and it cannot even be supported through the various public aid instruments. The reason for this is that the notion of innovation is vague, the rules can be interpreted in many ways, and, consequently, there is uncertainty over the fairness of the system. For this reason, it is this area that needs improving, because SMEs are often particularly innovative. They are also a driving force behind any kind of growth and the creation of new jobs. Market-oriented research support for SMEs should be encouraged through special funding. Forms of public intervention, be they tax advantages or direct subsidies, must not, however, influence what types of subsidy are approved nor the permitted intensity of aid granted. Member States should in future be free to devise their own policies so as to ensure that the competition rules which are within the Community’s competence are neutral in relation to the choice of instruments. The establishment of a European Research Council would strengthen the worldwide competitive position of basic research carried out in Europe at the highest scientific level. This would mainly come about by offering long-term funding at European level. There is a need to ensure that the European Research Council is granted sufficient resources, not out of the present budget, but over and above the existing research funding. It is also important that the Commission should provide further and more accurate information about which forms of public aid do not distort competition. The Commission’s aims to investigate and clarify the Community’s R[amp]D state aid system and target such aid at horizontal objectives are very important and welcome.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the points of view in this dossier are well known. This week, the European ship has to decide which port to enter. To liberalise or not to liberalise, that is not the question as far as I am concerned. What is important is how we liberalise and whether we do it humanely. The Conciliation Committee came to an agreement on this, and I admit that some of the sharp edges on which people can get hurt in a liberalisation process have been filed off, including by limiting self-handling to seafaring personnel. It is just unfortunate that it was not just that little bit more, then I, too, could have reconciled myself with the text. As has already been said repeatedly by fellow Members, there was indeed a majority in Parliament in favour of imposing compulsory authorisations for service providers and self-handling. The word was ‘must’. Unfortunately, Parliament’s lead was not taken, and the agreement did not move on from ‘may’. If the Member States diverge in the way they use the possibilities they are given, there is of course a risk of distortion of competition. The fear of distortion of competition in itself can also lead to lax regulation. We do not like that idea, and therefore I do not agree with this draft text. We know that St Nicholas is not due until December, but I sincerely hope that we can prevent the dockers from being left holding the baby, or in this case Black Peter, as early as this week. I have sympathy for those who earn their living in the ports. I shall therefore be voting against the draft. Whatever the result of the vote, I should like to address the Belgian dockers with the following request: do not in any event rest on your laurels, as not even the rejection of the text will mean that your problems are at an end. You know that a discussion has been underway for some time on the question as to whether the Belgian ports act – known as the ‘Major law’ – is in accordance with the treaty rules on the free movement of services. I strongly advise you good people to take control in this sphere in good time, before others have to set to work on it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the integration of ten new countries into the European Union means mutual recognition, as the rapporteur, Mr Brok, points out, of the fact that, over and above traditional national interests, there are general European interests which every country should see as part of its national interests. Consequently, old and new countries should stop thinking in a purely ethno-centric manner. Besides, the whole integration procedure, as the report makes clear, speeds up progress by these countries with reforms in their economic, administrative and political environment and this is the biggest gain for their people. In particular, I should like to express the satisfaction of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market at the fact that these countries are aligning with the acquis communautaire in the fields of company law, accounting rules, customs law and movements of capital and, more generally, at the noteworthy results achieved as a whole in the field of transposing legislation into their national law. At the same time, however, I would express the Committee’s regret at the delay appearing in certain countries in the fields of trade, cross-border transactions and recognition of professional qualifications. Here it would point out that a clear message must be sent that the huge prospects opening up for their peoples are tied in with the obligations which they have with regard to the application of Community legislation. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I should like to thank the Council representative for her reply to my question; however, I fear that my approach to this issue has not been understood. I do not think, at least from the discussions held so far – I am a new MEP – that the economic and social repercussions of illegal immigration or the de facto immigration of the present influx of illegal immigrants and the imminent influx from countries which will join the Community when the European Union enlarges are fully appreciated or taken into serious account, even in a legal procedure. Allow me to quote an example from my own country: Greece, with a population of 10 million, already has one and a half million immigrants, economic refugees or other types of immigrant, meaning that the working population of the country has increased by 20%. This is causing huge economic and social problems and crime problems. Think what will happen when Turkey joins the European Union and at least another 20 million unemployed enter Europe. This is why I wanted to know if there are any Council or Commission studies on the matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
I want to add my congratulations and thanks to Mr Méndez de Vigo and all those who worked on it. I not only thank them but envy them. An extraordinarily fine job has been done. We have a text here which states concisely what Europe is about and states what rights we uphold as citizens of this great Union. I am sad, indeed, to see the ranks of British Conservatives have lined up against the idea of making the institutions of the Union answerable to breaches of the rights of the citizens of the Union. It is a sad thing that the party of Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe should have come to this point that, when we at last try to ensure that the institutions of the Union are not the tyrants of Brussels but persons subject under Article 51 to the obligations binding on all institutions of the Union, the British Conservatives say 'no'. I am not sure yet, because I have not heard from them, how far Mr Blair's hounds will be let free from the leash to speak out for this brilliant project. I hope that Mr Martin, who did such a fine job in helping at this convention, will be persuading his colleagues that the time has come not merely to adopt this Charter but to make it part of our law, binding upon those who govern us, not merely a proclamation but a binding part of the Treaties. Perhaps the best we can do for the time being is get it mentioned in Article 6 but that will only be for starters. It is not a perfect document; we all know it is not a perfect document. Nothing in life is perfect and it is also not perfect to declare rights but not uphold them effectively. I do note that there are articles about the presumption of innocence and about the principles of legality and the right to defence. As I said last night – I will say it again today – there are too many failings in that respect all across this Union and sometimes, in our eagerness to develop judicial and police cooperation, we neglect the importance of ensuring that the innocent are not made the passive victims, the collateral damage of a war against crime. Let us not merely adopt these rights but make them real in the hearts and in the experience of our citizens and let us make them part of our law.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, More Europe, the theme of the Spanish Presidency, is an objective that we support in principle. The real question, however, is what Europe? At a time when the European Union is in need of strong economic and social growth and must meet the aspirations of its citizens who are making their voice heard, the Barcelona Summit is being heralded as a decisive step in achieving an accelerated liberalisation of public services that the President-in-Office of the Council earlier referred to as ‘a network industry’. Liberalisation provides the magic answer. We face growing expectations of more ambitious and high-quality public services, however. Can this just be national self-interest? I think that this need is universal. The sizeable disparities that exist between countries in terms of people’s access to these services justify drawing up common European standards that will allow harmonisation to be carried out from above. It is not fewer public services that should be on the agenda, but more public services, which have been improved through development, by being made more democratic and through modernisation. The Union still believes that public services, or services of general interest, are an exception to the rules of competition. They must instead become the heart of European social cohesion, the key to action for a progressive Europe, and become one of its reference points and one of its values. When presented with the progress report on cohesion in the Union, will we continue to destroy with one hand what we are trying to achieve with the other? The Barcelona Summit will not restrict itself to this issue, of course, but the fundamental problems are the same: the economic situation, the fight against terrorism, enlargement, the need for more democratic institutions; that is, so many issues which call for renewed consideration of the meaning of the European Union and its goals, with the first meeting of the Convention opening tomorrow. It is no longer sufficient to include the formal reference to 'a more social Europe', and to the fact that we need to be closer to the people. We need strong signs and practical action. The answers predicted to come out of the summit are not yet moving in the right direction – very much the opposite in fact. A more liberal Europe is unfolding behind the More Europe theme, and this is the credo of the market. The people have other expectations and they will express these expectations forcefully at the demonstrations that will take place on the eve of the Summit. It is crucial that we listen to them.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, at this late stage of the evening there is not much to be said, especially since we all agree on the virtues of the report and its underlying point. I just want to quickly address three principles. First of all, it is obvious that criminal law and criminal sanctions touch the liberty of citizens more closely than any other branch of the law and therefore, being absolutely certain that there is a valid constitutional basis for the use of criminal law is vital to liberty as a fundamental matter of the rule of law. One of the things that the report and its explanatory statement do is to show exactly to what extent there is a basis. Secondly, in a democratic Community, it is essential that the citizens' representatives get to vote on the question of whether the criminal law should be extended. That alone would cause us to regard Pillar III as a very suspect basis for any kind of intervention in the criminal law. It effectively excludes the democratic representatives of the citizens in this Parliament beforehand and in the national parliaments afterwards. Therefore it is excellent to discover, as Mr Koukiadis shows, that it is a matter for the Community Pillar. I should to like to underline the point in paragraph 7 about subsidiarity and proportionality. Again, it sends a message to the Member States to improve their criminal law in an appropriate way and to allow sensitivity to local traditions in law. That is absolutely vital. Those are three important principles in an excellent report. I welcome Mr Bolkestein back from his brief sojourn in Scotland, where he was very welcome.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, noise pollution has a significant effect on the well being of very many European citizens. Noise in the areas close to airports often reaches a level that is unbearable for millions of our fellow citizens. That is why it is absolutely essential to combine regulatory methods with economic instruments in order to minimise noise pollution. The first measure that should be taken is to withdraw the noisiest aircraft. This measure has only been partially implemented so far. We are aware that many aircraft, which only just meet the standards described in Chapter 3, continue to use airports in Europe. It is now imperative that we supplement the regulatory measures with economic instruments. Therefore, using charges and applying the polluter pays principle is certainly a good initiative. We therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal, which seeks to introduce a system of charges in a harmonised Community framework. The aim is to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft and, in addition, to avoid dumping between airports. Noise dumping of this kind is obviously very harmful to citizens living close to these airports. That said, although the Commission’s proposal is sound in principle, when it is examined in more detail, it can be seen that it is not sufficiently rigorous or effective, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. According to this proposal, then, the introduction of charges is optional, which will inevitably bring about a dumping policy. Moreover, the differentiation between types of noise pollution is insufficient. Since the proposed ratio of 1:20 between the highest and lowest noise charge was insufficient, the rapporteur suggested increasing this ratio from 20 to 40, which is wholly acceptable. By and large, we agree with the proposals made by the rapporteur, but we added one element to these proposals that the rapporteur unfortunately rejects, namely to take into account the level of noise at night and the level of noise during the day/night/evening, which are two extremely important indicators of noise pollution which allow us to differentiate between charges. We hope that the rapporteur reviews his position and takes into account the problem of noise at night because it is obvious that this problem is certainly the most harmful nuisance that one can encounter. We are not going to solve the problem with charges alone, but in any case, this measure will help to improve the situation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am not going to speak about anything that we are going to debate now, and I apologise for departing from the agenda. This very evening I have learnt that ten members of the environmentalist organisation, Greenpeace, ten pacifist environmentalists, have been arrested by the military authorities of the Rock of Gibraltar, because they were trying to get near the submarine Tireless with a placard expressing what I believe everyone thinks: that the sea should not be occupied by nuclear energy. These environmentalists are still under arrest, and since Parliament has been, let us say, rather insensitive about safeguarding the interests of the citizens of the Campo de Gibraltar and Algeciras Bay, I ask at least that appropriate steps should be taken so that these pacifist environmentalists can sleep in their own homes. Thank you very much.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, considerable changes have been made to the proposed agenda. Reports have been shifted around and time slots have even been changed. Tomorrow we will start at 8.30 a.m. for the first time. One would have hoped that, due to a heavy agenda, the reports would be spread evenly over these five full days here at Strasbourg, but that is not the case: on Friday, two reports have been dropped and only three oral questions are down on the agenda. We are now faced with a dilemma. As elected members of our national parliaments, we represent our electorate and this must be reflected in all votes. However, the agenda for Fridays, for this Friday and for previous Fridays, is often so light that many MEPs genuinely believe that they can spend their time more productively in their own countries. I therefore wonder how we are to fulfil our obligations in the best way? I have talked extensively to MEPs from various groups on this matter and we concluded that Parliament must make a choice: either we give the agenda on Fridays sufficient weight so that more Members attend the votes or we do away with it altogether. This is not an anti-Strasbourg campaign but a plea for more Members to be present during the votes and also for an increase in Parliament’s prestige. You received an e-mail last week about our intention to apply for the quorum on Friday. The Conference of Presidents has also received a letter on this matter. However, the agenda is not heavier as a result. If anything, as I have already stated, this coming Friday’s agenda is lighter. Our plans, therefore, remain unchanged, and this means that if, on Friday, the necessary 209 Members are not present, then the vote will not take place. This is something about which we wanted to give you plenty of notice, so as to enable you, by being either present or absent, and not just by what you affirm, to make it known what you want on Fridays: to make the agenda more substantial or abolish it. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as Co-Chairman of the Social Affairs Section of the Stability Pact for the countries of South-Eastern Europe, I am naturally delighted about the fact that Croatia has prospects of accession. I have always been surprised, especially with regard to the social-economic aspects, that Romania and Bulgaria would be able to enter in 2007 and Croatia, that is further on socially and economically than both these countries, not. I have two concrete questions. First, the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange Office for the Western Balkan countries is supposed to have become operational in March. My question is: has that now finally happened? Europe has been promising to do a number of things for so long now, but it usually takes a very long time. My second question concerns the regional coordination centre for social policy for the Balkans. That was also supposed to be set up somewhere this year. My question is: where will this be, when will this happen, etc?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have one minute and three points to make. Firstly, I should like to thank Mrs van Lancker on the work she has done in producing this excellent report. As for my second point, I wish to restate my Group’s fundamental convictions. The working areas opened up in the social agenda must be given a coherent, and certainly conciliatory, legal framework: The policy of convergence and the policies of coordination which have been initiated, and also supported by legislative measures, when necessary, which in turn should be reinforced by genuinely stringent monitoring methods. As for my third point, there are some rights that have simply been glossed over from the viewpoint of a social Europe: the right to a minimum income, the information and consultation of employees, the European collective agreement. These are points which, we know, are contested by the conservatives in Europe, but to which we, in our Group, attach great importance. Minister, Commissioner, we must continue to adopt an ambitious approach on these issues. I hope, Minister, that in Nice the French Presidency will succeed in pushing through an ambitious social agenda, since embarking on the construction of a social Europe is still the great hope of all our fellow citizens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Togo is still in a state of political paralysis. The regular condemnations issued by the European Parliament, the most recent of which dates back to September, have had no effect. Human rights are constantly disregarded and democracy remains an elusive utopia. The leader of the students' union, Hounjo Mawudzuro, has been imprisoned. Last August, the chairman of the main opposition party, Yawovi Agboyibo, was sentenced to six months in prison on fallacious grounds. New threats of legal action are hanging over him and President Eyadema will not release him unless he applies for a pardon. In fact only someone who is guilty can apply for a pardon and Yawovi Agboyibo is not guilty. His only crime is to have criticised the regime. He should be released unconditionally and be able to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections which are to be held next March. Democracy does not consist solely of holding elections. These are dependent on what happens upstream, and in particular on the rules stating who can vote and who can stand as a candidate, just as we saw in the past in Côte d'Ivoire and as we see today in Congo-Brazzaville. The European Parliament should strongly condemn these new developments and see to it that the elections run smoothly. Only if human rights are respected and the rule of law upheld will it be possible for normal cooperation relations between Togo and the European Union to be resumed. It is necessary to establish a dialogue with the regime and the opposition. This is why the Joint Parliamentary Assembly should send a mission to Togo to report on respect for human rights and the smooth running of the electoral process.

Political group: Verts-ALE