GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, the high number of motorcycles on the roads and in the cities of the European Union is a clear reality, particularly in the Mediterranean Member States, which enjoy good weather throughout the year. Mr Lange’s report, whose environmental concern our group shares, constantly compares 2- and 3-wheel vehicles with 4-wheel vehicles. However, their ease of use, the fluidity that they give to traffic in cities, their simplicity for parking and the low cost of purchasing and maintaining them should be more than sufficient reason for the necessary anti-pollution measures not to decrease their use. The European industry needs more time to apply the proposed measures. I therefore ask that the Commission, in cooperation with the manufacturers, evaluate the applicability and the cost-efficiency relationship of these measures and essentially of the periods proposed, as we run the risk of indirectly favouring the large companies in the sector, which are precisely not the European ones. We need tax incentives to facilitate the sale and use of less-polluting vehicles that are easy to use, improve traffic and are more integrated into our cities.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, let me start with a word of thanks to the Commission for the support we have always received from it, and also, many times over, to the Italian Presidency of the Council. I found what it had to say clear and precise. Let me say that the resolution we have produced, and the Italian Presidency’s statements today, make it possible for us to come to an agreement, but please let us do so quickly, for we cannot allow this issue to overshadow the elections. So what is this about? After almost a quarter-century of direct elections to the European Parliament, we still have the structure of a parliamentary assembly, but we have to develop into a real parliament, and that is what this Statute is for. Of course, it is only an initial step, which has, of course, to be followed by what has already been laid down in the 1965 Protocol. Only then will we have a real statute for MEPs, and so I appeal to the governments to take this issue up and take it forward. The second point I want to make is that we all know that the current position, with differing salary-related payments and this wretched system for reimbursing travelling expenses, is unsustainable, but let me remind you of a simple truth: these things can only be sorted out together. There will be no Statute unless the way in which travel costs are reimbursed is reformed, but that will not be reformed without a Statute. If you want to detach the one from the other, then you will end up proposing a solution that lacks both fairness and solidarity. This is where we need clarity and transparency; that is how we treat with respect those who elect us and by whose money we are paid. I would like, at this point, to thank all the group chairmen for making it possible to submit a joint resolution, but there are three persons whom I would like to name, without whom we would not have got to where we are, namely the chairman of my group, Mr Barón Crespo, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Mr Gargani, and, of course, the President of the European Parliament, Mr Cox. Following what I hope is the merely temporary collapse of the new constitution, let us, today, send out a very quiet message to the effect that there is perhaps such a thing as progress in Europe after all. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, thank you very much for your answer. I would like to ask you whether it is your preliminary assessment that this mathematical formula really is compatible with Community law. I cannot see why the Greek authorities proceeded, as you said, to change the law, as the Greek Parliament already has the capacity to deal with this. I would like, therefore, to have your preliminary assessment. Also, although this was a formula for avoiding very low offers, it had a damaging effect on the overall assessment of public works, owing to the very small percentage of the original amount intended for the public works concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to reiterate that this proposal was negotiated in Spanish and in English and that therefore the only thing Mr Pomés’s intervention is trying to do is generate confusion. I maintain that the corresponding Spanish translation of the English text is ‘autoridades competentes’, because that is the truth and that is what is correct.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Commissioner, for a helpful and very informative reply. I do not think any blame for the problem lies with you because you do not have many battalions at your disposal! You can only set a lead. The price of heroin going down would suggest that the supply of heroin is increasing. We know that the crop in Afghanistan is getting bigger and bigger, and with the use of cannabis and synthetic drugs ever growing, clearly we are not winning the battle. So my question is: how can we strengthen policing in Europe in the fight against the use and the distribution of drugs?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in favour of establishing this Authority as described in Mr Whitehead’s excellent report as soon as possible. It is to be hoped that we will then enjoy sound cooperation between the Union and the Member States. With regard to risk analysis and deciding what is and is not safe, we will have a better scientific basis for solutions. Inspections will then be monitored by the agency based in Dublin. What remains is the policy, which is what we have reserved for ourselves, and risk management, in which the European Commission and Parliament must join forces. There is a great deal yet to be done on that front. We must have clear European standards and European measuring methods. The Member States and the Union must have a common system that works. Crises have shown that that is not the case and that the Commission has far too little power on that score. I assume that we will get the Authority on track under the Belgian Presidency but, under that Presidency, we must also take a crucial step forward towards a truly common European policy on food safety.

Political group: ELDR
The proposals to integrate the new Member States are illustrative of colonial-type efforts to annex the CEECs. There will be no single CAP in practice and the policy applied to the new Member States will be even worse than the policy applied to the current Member States. Enlargement is being used as a springboard by the strong countries in the north to abolish direct income support by reclassifying it as 'acquis communautaire'. This will wipe out vital agricultural sectors in both the CEECs and the ΕU. The aim is to secure markets for big business and develop neo-capitalist farming models which marginalise the agricultural sector and alter its social and environmental role (paragraph 24 of the report speaks for itself here). The ΕU will throw a few crumbs at the CEECs, while at the same time turning them into markets for its own products – and not the other way round, as their propaganda would have us believe – with the result that the agricultural economy will shrink, small and medium-sized farms will be wiped out and employment and the social and economic fabric will be irreparably damaged. The Communist Party of Greece is against the accession of any country to the ΕU because accession has nothing to offer small and medium-sized farmers or the working classes. However, as and when these countries join the European Union, they must have the same rights and receive the same subsidies from the first year of their accession and quotas must be determined on the basis of the real capacities and food requirements of their people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to speak about the issue of electronic data protection, which has already been mentioned. To come back to the points made by Mrs Cederschiöld, I have heard in many forums and many other communications media in the Internet and e-mail that there has been a great deal of annoyance among users. This is logical, for if we examine the principles of opt-in and opt-out using the example of letter mail, opt-out simply means that e-mails are paid on delivery, i.e. by the addressee. After all, it is the users who pay the Internet access fees. I would get very annoyed about this too. This is not to say that this is a bad intervention, but I would vote for an opt-in system for e-mails. Otherwise, I think that the directive’s major shortcoming is what is not regulated, namely monitoring by the state, which is explicitly excluded. I think that this poses the greatest threat to fundamental rights in the European Union – and fundamental rights are there to protect citizens from the state. This is excluded here, which means that the directive is inadequate. The rest offers quite a good level of protection. However, if we draw together the opinion on cybercrime and Parliament’s opinion on terrorism, it is quite striking that a great many things are thrown together and criminalised: for example, “everything which is illegal offline should be illegal online”. This is the case anyway, so we do not need any directives on cybercrime. No one has yet given me a plausible explanation of why we actually need this, and which new laws will be adopted and crimes defined which are not already covered elsewhere. In my view, this whole cybercrime issue is primarily intended to legitimise intervention in fundamental rights. Finally, I should like to remind you of an anniversary which took place two days ago. A hundred years ago, the typewriter was banned in Turkey. Why? Because it was feared that it would enable people to communicate anonymously; they could no longer be identified by their handwriting, and this would open the door to crime. Banning the typewriter was intended to prevent this. Perhaps this would be appropriate once again today?!

Political group: Verts-ALE
I welcome Mrs Roure’s report on another initiative from the French Presidency – this time to step up cooperation in the legal area to ensure that no barriers are put in place to prevent the extradition of suspected criminals accused of money laundering or other related offences involving illicit funds. The draft convention proposes that banking secrecy may not be used as a reason to refuse a request from another Member State for information on somebody suspected of being involved in financial crime. In addition, the idea is that, on request, Member States should furnish details of all bank accounts held by suspects. The aim of the new convention is to oblige the Member States actively to pursue suspicious transactions. - Gebhardt Report (A5-0317/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, sadly the outcome of yesterday's verdict came as no surprise. Those who have been involved in this matter over the past months and years have been able to see with their own eyes that this trial was a farce. The judges and especially the public prosecutor had absolutely no interest in properly reinvestigating the old evidence from 1994. And in this trial the defence once again had no opportunity to call new witnesses who wanted to put forward contrary evidence. This was a copy of a bad trial, and the result of a bad trial is a bad verdict. But one thing should be quite clear: this says less about the government's attitude to reform than about the stubborn resistance of conservatives. These judges, yesterday's judges, wanted to show who is boss. Their answer is clear: we are the bosses, not the European Parliament or the European Commission in Brussels, and not the Government in Ankara either: we are the ones who decide what will happen in this case. I think that the only way the Government can limit the damage it has undoubtedly suffered in connection with its request to start negotiations in December is to show that this is an exception to the rule. That rule must remain the same: reforms on paper must be put into practice. Two examples. There has already been mention of the plans – and I emphasise the word 'plans' – to abolish State Security Courts. I should like to call on the Government to make haste in this matter, not to drag things out, and to ensure that these courts are actually abolished by December. The second example, highly symbolic of course in this context, is the use of the Kurdish language, which we should remember was where this whole issue started. On paper, once again on paper, the use of this language is permitted, but in practice there are still numerous administrative hurdles. So it is very important that by the end of the year the Kurdish language can actually be used in the education system and in the media. Finally, for those who have concluded solely on the basis of this matter that negotiations should not start, I would like to remind you of what Ms Zana herself said. In a letter to the European Parliament she said: I would rather be in prison in a country that is negotiating with the European Union than free in a country on which Europe has turned its back.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, at the request of Mr Cunha I am presenting our statement on this debate on the school milk scheme. For more than 20 years, the European Union has been financing the free distribution of milk in primary and secondary schools. In recent years this action has amounted to an average annual expenditure of some EUR 90 million for more than 300 million litres of milk, benefiting around 10 million children and young people, or nearly 20% of eligible schoolchildren. There are two main reasons justifying this measure and why it should continue. The first is its social impact, as it ensures a minimum balanced diet for many children and young people who otherwise would not have access to one. The main beneficiaries are children and young people from disadvantaged social classes and poorer districts in both rural and urban areas. The second reason is that, as there is a structural surplus in the market for milk products, this measure also represents an incentive to dispose of milk in a far more useful and constructive way than by distributing it, denaturing it or exporting it to third countries at even greater cost. It is a pity that the European Union does not have more actions of this kind for other products, instead of dumping them on international markets by means of subsidies which are sometimes twice their price on those markets, which makes it difficult to understand the alleged objective of budgetary savings. The United States, which is famous for having a more individualist outlook with less solidarity, spends nearly 9 000 million dollars a year on distributing foods to schoolchildren, i.e. 100 times more than the European Union. And the European Union is now proposing to move away from 100% financing and is proposing 50% cofinancing, which will especially penalise less wealthy countries like Portugal. As a Portuguese national, I would be shocked if a measure of this kind were to be approved while my own country held the presidency of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly we welcome the reduction, if not the complete elimination, of paper quotas: this is a more realistic approach. Secondly, the establishment of a relationship between financial compensation for fishing rights and payment for development is an improvement in the agreement. In the Commission's press release in June it noted that these two aspects have been separated. As a result, it should now be possible to identify clearly what has been paid for. It should also allow for greater transparency and accountability. While this is very welcome, it does not give much detail. I would like the Commission to give us more details as to what is going to be funded by the development fund and how it is going to be managed. Whilst this is a welcome change in the way in which the Commission looks at fisheries agreements, it should take the same approach with the ACP agreements. The Commission says that this is too difficult for all sorts of reasons, though it was one of the focal points in the recent partnership agreement discussion paper which the Commission produced. We want to see this approach taken in the ACP agreements as well. This kind of approach, separating development from what is actually being paid for the fishing rights is extremely important, as has been mentioned by other speakers. If it is possible for Greenland, then it should also be possible for the ACP countries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, after Mr Fatuzzo’s diverting speech, I would like to add my comments on the Katiforis report. I come from the south of Italy and I am sad to say that we continue, as always, to be badly served by airlines. I should have been in the Chamber for one of my reports – I am a shadow rapporteur – but I did not get here in time. In any case, I would like to point out here that this connection between smoking and health which we are continuing to make in resolutions on excise duties and State tobacco subsidies is inappropriate. There is clearly a connection between health and smoking but this is not the way to solve the problem. In southern Italy, particularly in Naples, contraband cigarettes are sold door-to-door and on the street: therefore, if we really want to boost the smuggling activity, the way to do it is to continue to wage war on this product. I would also point out that in some very poor areas with a high level of delinquency, such as the province of Caserta, tobacco succeeds in literally keeping3 000 workers off the breadline, and these jobs would be placed in extreme jeopardy. Congratulations, Mr Katiforis, on your two-fold resolution which the House has endorsed almost unanimously.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteur has already explained the SAB is asking to approve two separate sums of money. I hope that these sums have been arrived at after taking good account of the principles of budgetary prudence and value for money. The political decision to approve the building for Mr Solana and the 45 military personnel had already been taken by the fifteen Member States at Helsinki. I would like to raise three issues about this. Firstly, it is not clear why the military personnel in the building should be counted as administrative expenditure. They would more appropriately come under the heading of operational expenditure. Secondly, I understand there is a gentlemen's agreement according to which the European Parliament and the Council agreed not to interfere with each other's budget. I believe this has been pushed to its limit. The Council's interpretation of the gentlemen's agreement is certainly imaginative. The agreement applies to buildings and Council staff but not necessarily to seconded military personnel, whose salary comes from their own Member State. However their overheads would be paid for by the EU in the future with no real monitoring or accountability role by any institution. Thirdly, I am not satisfied with the use of the SAB as an instrument for this because these extra needs were foreseen prior to the conclusion of the budgetary process last year and should have been incorporated in this year's budget. In accordance with the spirit of the gentlemen's agreement, I will not comment on the need for 45 military personnel in the building. That will surely be as safe as Fort Knox. The point I wish to raise here is that Council must apply the same sort of budgetary rigour to its administrative expenditure as it expects of other institutions. And I would like some reassurance in the future that this expenditure will be spent in the most efficient and economic way possible. On Parliament's request for the extra 15 million for the additional advance payment for the new building in Brussels, although it can be identified as a prudent step which will allow considerable savings in the future, I am concerned about the messages that this may convey. I believe it is crucial for Parliament to introduce activity-based budgeting as a matter of utmost urgency.

Political group: PSE
Thank you Mr President. As Mrs Patrie has already said, 80 percent of the population of Europe live in towns or cities. The chances of a good life for these people depend entirely on the environment where they live. Unfortunately, towns and cities today are associated almost automatically with a bad environmental situation – large quantities of emissions, a lot of traffic and polluted waterways. But it does not actually need to be this way. Better knowledge and new technology provides the opportunity for a better environment in Europe's towns and cities. Clear legislation and careful control of this are yet other tools. The towns and cities themselves have many of the instruments available to them, which help to improve the environment for their own citizens. It is often in the municipalities and towns that they are most aware of their own problems. With sensible town planning, well-functioning public transport and cooperation with other municipal interested parties, it is possible to provide citizens with a better environment. In practice, it is also at the local level that the environmental decisions we take here in Parliament are to be implemented. The climate issue is a good example of this. Reduced traffic and conversion from fossil fuels at a local level is necessary to achieve a change in the climate threat we are experiencing. There needs to be a clear dialogue and good cooperation between the institutions of the Union and those acting at local level, that is the municipalities or towns and cities. I believe that Mrs Lienemann's report will contribute to this. However, we must also get citizens involved at local level. This can be done through cooperation with universities, voluntary organisations, companies and other actors. For this reason I feel that, in the definition of who can apply for funds from the framework programme, there must be room for organisations other than those we traditionally regard as municipal organisations. There are many good examples of municipalities cooperating with others. It is the spread of responsibility that is the important thing. This, in my opinion, should be a criterion. Therefore, I would like to support Amendment No 31.

Political group: PSE