GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I too would like to join previous speakers in extending sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr van Velzen, for this report had to deal with two important subject areas, and has managed to strike an excellent balance between them. We need competition if we are to have any chance at all of creating the necessary conditions for the information society. At the same time, however, we want to afford EU citizens equal and secure access to these IT facilities. This report demonstrates this in the form of important points. I would like to touch on four of them. Firstly, the report emphasises the need to separate regulation from infrastructure and content. This is absolutely essential if we are to secure not just a stronger market, but also greater diversity of information for citizens in the future. Secondly, this report is in favour of using open standards and the common interface to secure access for all citizens to the information society and to enable them to participate in it from a technological point of view. Thirdly, accordingly, it is both right and logical to use must carry rules to secure transmission opportunities for public service broadcasters under the terms of the content of their task. Fourthly and finally, I would like to point out that what we need to do now is to analyse very carefully, on the basis of this report, what conclusions we should draw if we are to secure a broadly-based right to information for all citizens in the future. I hope there will be sound cooperation between the Commission and Parliament at the forthcoming discussions on the new directive, and also on the ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the time has come for us to vote on the report by our fellow Members Mr Gil-Robles and Mr Tsatsos. I think it is important that we are able to do so. I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs Villiers. She is to be commended not simply for her report on the directive on investment services but in particular for her work as a Member working behind the scenes, as it were. The debate on her report closed yesterday evening. My group attaches great importance to the coherence of our work. In the interests of coherence we should have voted on that report now. As things stand, Parliament will not vote on the report until tomorrow, because the British Liberal Democrats are meeting in Brighton today. It so happens that the French Socialists will be in Limoges tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, in the context of the debate on the future of regional policy, there is a very wide consensus that priority for the least developed regions should be maintained. Concentrating resources on the Objective 1 regions should, therefore, constitute one of the key pillars of cohesion policy for the period 2007–2013, as is the case now. This would be in line with the principles of solidarity and redistribution. The accession of the candidate countries to the European Union will, in statistical terms, reduce the average GDP of the European Union. Accordingly, the Commission’s progress report states that 18 regions should lose Objective 1 status. They would nevertheless benefit from the support provided under the phasing out mechanism. The French overseas departments will not be affected. They will continue to be classed as Objective 1 in 2007, insofar as their per capita GDP will remain well below 75% of the new European Union average. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to foster equality between regions by taking account of the permanent difficulties affecting islands, mountain regions and regions with low population density. Community intervention of this kind would be counterbalanced by a range of territorial criteria. The latter would be used to define priorities and to determine the extent of the means to be allocated. Nevertheless, I feel it is useful to bear in mind that the concept of ultra-peripheral regions must never be confused with that of peripheral regions, islands or structurally disadvantaged regions, regardless of any relationship of solidarity between all these regions. This is because the special legal status of the ultra-peripheral regions is due to their very remoteness from the continent of Europe. The contribution of other European Union policies is the weakest element of the current progress report. In particular, this concerns the system of governance to be implemented so as to ensure that cohesion policy produces the best possible results in the regions concerned. I have in mind agriculture, rural development, transport, innovation, education and training. I am also thinking of competition policy in the context of state aids to regions and tax concessions. I would, however, like to conclude on two encouraging points. Firstly, there is consensus on the need for real improvements to the financial systems and administrative procedures of the Structural Funds. Lastly, I am encouraged that the suggestion that regional policy should be renationalised has lost support. Had it not, it would most certainly have brought European integration to a grinding halt.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, free access to the port services market and equality of opportunities are requirements of the Union’s Treaties and, in this regard, it is urgent that reliable information be available in order to regulate and monitor that no State provides aid to their ports, since this jeopardises free competition between the different Community ports. There are, however, aspects which should not be exclusively regulated by the Union. The Member States and their constitutional bodies with competences in this area must maintain their capacity to include their specific rules on invitations to tender for service-providing contracts and for the protection of the workers involved. Furthermore, pilotage, mooring services and stowage, given their status as obligatory services, must not be included in the Community Directive, but their regulation must remain in the hands of the respective port authorities, without prejudice to respect for European social conditions. And, just as an airport would be in chaos if it had various air traffic control companies, in a port there must only be one pilotage service and one mooring service and self-handling must not be allowed, and would only be acceptable if it were carried out by regular seafaring crew who furthermore are duly qualified and have sufficient knowledge to ensure that safety is not jeopardised.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, having followed the information given to the public during the Prestige crisis and the speeches in the parliamentary information committee, I believe that the vessel sank for two reasons: firstly due to its terrible seaworthiness, and secondly, due to the bad decision by Mr Aznar’s Spanish Government authorities, which, rather than seeking a place of refuge, chose to send the damaged vessel to areas with rough seas, with waves more than six metres high, until it broke up and sank, causing the biggest ever oil slick in Europe. I think that the fact that the vessel was sailing in an unsuitable condition was the responsibility of the owner, the captain, the oil company that owned the cargo, but above all, it was the responsibility of the classification society ABS, whose inspection conducted in the port of Dubai four months before it sank had not been correctly carried out according to the audit subsequently conducted by the International Association of Classification Societies. ABS also inspected the ship Panam Serena that exploded in Porto Torres, Sardinia on 1 January this year. I have therefore already tabled an amendment urging the Commission to carry out more effective monitoring and to audit classification societies and their inspectors regarding the quality of their work. It also urges the Commission to put a stop to any collusion or conflict of interests that there may be with owners, charterers, oil companies, etc. There needs to be greater transparency in this and also in the International Maritime Organisation, which receives a large proportion of its budget from States that are known as flag of convenience States, but where the real control is in the hands of other States, some of which are European.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Malcolm Harbour on an unusually well-informed report which addresses many important issues. This report also addresses the fact that the society of the future will be a mobile Internet society, and I believe that we Members are, in a way, guinea pigs as regards whether or not this mobility will work. The report also shows the rapid rate of change that we are seeing in this area, the points of departure for the capital market being among the things that have changed since Mr Harbour’s work was completed. The only thing that I would like to say to the Commissioner today is that I hope that the Commission’s organisation is sufficiently flexible to be able to take account of the need for cooperation between its different areas and to be able to react quickly to the changes required. I also feel that account must be taken of this issue in the White Paper on European Governance. Better coordination of the Commission’s activities is needed, as Mrs Mann also mentioned. It is also evident that the Internet will lead to challenges for administrations, with open competition between administrations becoming the guiding principle – and the Commission will have to cope with this competition.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should first like to say how pleased I am that a political debate has taken place in this House at last. Such a debate was launched this morning, but only four of us were present. (Applause) I should like to respond to the comment made by leader of the Group of the European People’s Party . This is a curious body with two souls. Mr Poettering, I would like to clarify my statement last week. Firstly, Mr Prodi, President of the current Commission, was invested and endorsed by the majority of the groups in this House. I have today reiterated that as my group and I see it, it is Mr Prodi’s duty to lead the Commission until the very last day of his mandate. It has fallen to him to steer the Commission through a period of great political importance. Secondly, in his capacity as a European citizen Mr Prodi has a right to express political opinions on the future of Europe. He cannot be denied that right. (Applause) Preventive censure must not be introduced. It would be like forbidding Cardinals of the Catholic Church to speak of God. It simply does not make sense. (Laughter) Thirdly, I should like to state my personal opinion, if Mr Romano Prodi, who is both an Italian and a European citizen, decides to stand in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament, he should then resign. I think that is pretty basic. That is what I actually stated. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Communist Party of Greece, I welcome the victory of the people of Venezuela against the local and foreign forces undermining their democracy and constitution. A year after the failed American-backed coup, which was tacitly tolerated by the European Union and openly supported by Spain, which then had the presidency, the enemies of progress, democracy and social justice have again tried to overthrow President Chavez and the constitutional order. However, all the striking businessmen managed to do was to cripple the country’s economy before retreating in disarray. The days of imperialists setting up dictators everywhere are over. The people of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, of Latin America as a whole, are stepping up their fight for democracy and social change and we offer them our solidarity and undivided support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I think that the new position which has been outlined for Helsinki on relations between the European Union and Turkey is a good one, and that it should perhaps be made more urgent, by stating even more firmly, the two principles on which – I believe – our approach is based. The first is that Turkey has the right to become part of the European Union and that we need Turkey for our project, which will not be complete unless Turkey is incorporated into it. The second is that in order for Turkey to be integrated, it must meet the same requirements accepted by the other Members of the project. I am convinced that we need Turkey not just for reasons of security but also to regain the credibility and universality of the project of European construction. A large secular State with a majority Muslim population will prove that the Europe we are building is not a Europe with a Christian outlook, but is rather one based on universal values relevant to every citizen of Europe, of any faith or of none at all. This Europe that we are committed to is capable of sharing values with other great groups of humanity from whom a project based on a religious outlook would separate us. If we state emphatically that Turkey’s place is ready for them, that we are waiting for our fellow European Turks to come and join us at the Union’s table, we must state, just as firmly that there will be no weakening of the conditions set out in Copenhagen. We must do this because we acknowledge that Turkey has a long way to go, basically in the area of human rights and of the rights of their various peoples and minorities, whether they are recognised as such or not, who make up the population of that country. Turkey also has a long way to go in terms of the way it acts towards Cyprus. We must make Turkey aware of this firmly but without exaggerating or caricaturing things, by describing their shortcomings and the obstacles they must overcome without shying away from them, but neither must we portray these difficulties as insurmountable. The European Union must see their shortcomings, even the most serious ones, as problems, and we will be committed to helping Turkey to find solutions to them, always bearing in mind the fact that our shared objective is to achieve the integration of Turkey into the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mrs Ayuso, the rapporteur, has drafted a text that is much closer to the proposal for a compromise between the Council and the Commission on ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin. Treating this matter as an urgent subject of major importance in Strasbourg now opens up the possibility of our vote being followed by an agreement at last. Only thus can we give our farmers and traditional small-scale distilleries the security that they so urgently need in order to be able to plan ahead. There is no sense in discriminating against the producers of agricultural alcohol while leaving synthetic alcohol unaffected. It is for that reason that we referred this matter back to the Agriculture Committee weeks ago. The changed language in the new Commission proposal at last allows the Member States to enact their own supplementary regulations at national level. Only this will make it possible for small distilleries in the EU to survive. The cultivation of potatoes and cereals for the purpose of extracting alcohol and the utilisation of fruit from flourishing fruit meadows ensures the continued existence of these valued cultural landscapes, which, without national supplementary regulations, will be in extreme danger.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to move the debate on to ground which has not been much talked about and to the remarks Mr Prodi made in his introductory statement about the regional element. I would like to do so particularly from the standpoint of my own constituency, Scotland, but not only from that point of view. It is interesting to note, when you reflect on Scotland, that about 80% of the competences exercisable by the Scottish Parliament concern domains in which the European Union has a shared competence. When we make laws here, the Scottish Parliament and government are bound by them and have to put them into effect; that is quite right and it is the same across other similar regions. But sometimes it can produce ridiculous results, for example when environmental laws are too detailed to allow sensible local discretion in adapting common principles to local situations. The water problems of the Island of Islay or the Glen of Strathspey are hardly comparable with those of the Rhine basin. A one-size-fits-all approach to water law can have absurd results, for example in respect of the Scotch malt whisky industry, despite its established environmental friendliness over 200 years. The White Paper says, as did Commissioner Prodi this morning, that the Commission will consult regional and local government early in the policy-formation process and will seek to legislate so that local knowledge is effectively deployed in the implementation process. That is quite right and very welcome, though it was a pity he only devoted one sentence in his opening speech to it. Many of us had expected that the White Paper would contain a far stronger statement, especially in relation to the so-called partner regions exercising their own constitutional powers of legislation. Europe will fail to regain or retain the affections of the citizens of the Union – and that includes the people in Scotland and our counterparts in many similar lands such as Catalonia, Flanders, Wales, Galicia, the Basque country – unless the regional and local governments with whom people there finally identify are fully respected partners in the governance of Europe. We are the same size and population as many of the existing Member States, the same as many of the adjoining States and we are bigger than quite a few of them. It is often said that big, important regions of large countries do better in the Union than small Member States. I doubt it and nothing in the White Paper has yet persuaded me that is true.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Two years ago I spoke in the debate on the annual legislative programme on behalf of the , and I was very critical of the old process which I described as the swapping of shopping lists between Parliament and Commission. Now we have a proper process, a proper interinstitutional dialogue. We have in front of us now a broad strategy tailored to the overriding political goal of enlargement and few of us would disagree with the broad picture and, indeed, the early attempt to attach budgetary implications. Now the real process will start with detailed consideration in Parliament's committees and this is what is paramount. At last there is meaningful involvement of Parliament and I have no doubt the committees will start to flesh out a final legislative programme. This is a welcome change in our working methods and should allow us to plan and prepare our legislative work much better. Added to these developments, the Legal Affairs Committee had an historic joint meeting with national parliamentarians, this morning, to discuss the EU legislative process and how Community law is implemented. There can be no doubt that colleagues in national parliaments need fair warning of what we will be dealing with and when. This will allow them to input to us or to hold their ministers in the Council to account in a meaningful way. It was clear from our discussion that those Member States who allow their national parliamentarians early involvement in the process have far less difficulty implementing Community legislation. Their citizens are more comfortable with the process and the final result has increased legitimacy. That is the real connection we are all striving to obtain with our citizens so there are thankfully new winds blowing through our legislative process. The convention may unleash a few more but I am glad to see that those wretched shopping lists have gone at the first blast.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the conclusion and the action plan of the extraordinary Council offer a solid basis for a focused, measured, coordinated response to the attacks of 11 September. The following are examples of the proposals which receive my full support: developing international judicial instruments, freezing the funding of terrorist networks and exchanging intelligence in conjunction with the US by setting up an anti-terrorist unit within Europol. We are also pleased that the Council, the Commission and Parliament have spoken with one voice over the past three weeks, embarrassing slips by Commissioner Bolkestein and Prime Minister Berlusconi apart. This suggests that European cooperation, both internally and externally, is growing up fast. The weapon of new terrorism is fear and disruption, and hunger for power. An effective line of attack protecting the international rule of law must spring from a worldwide coalition against terrorism under the aegis of the UN and on the basis of UN resolutions. Provided that that coalition is based on international rule of law principles and not, as was the case in the past with the Taliban, by financing future enemies, for that is misguided Realpolitik. I support a worldwide dignified response, irrespective of race, nationality or religion, proportional across the legal, political, diplomatic, financial, military and economic fields, whereby an appeal is made for extreme caution with regard to innocent lives. Furthermore, we should not lose sight of the long-term perspective, particularly now. Let there be no doubt about this: the direct causes of terrorism do not lie in creed or poverty. In the climate of globalisation, there are certainly links between economic development, contrasting poverty and trade. For example, the World Bank expects that, as a result of the terrorist attacks, economic growth in the developing countries will drop from 5% to 2%. The expected effects are enormous, with ten million additional people under the poverty line and between twenty to forty thousand more children under the age of five who will die. If we fail to formulate adequate responses in the face of this harsh reality, we in Europe will be applying double standards. Investing in worldwide security means taking safety measures, but it also calls for international solidarity, which is a basis for international cooperation and, along with this, a basis for the worldwide coalition against terrorism.

Political group: PSE