GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I came to this opinion on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee with many misgivings. The suggested extension of the directive to a new swathe of businesses and professions looks on the face of it to be both dangerous and burdensome: dangerous in that there might be a threat to the privileged lawyer/client relationship which is the linchpin of access to justice in a civil society, and burdensome because in theory this directive would now extend to your local high street jeweller. However, it is one thing to require a multinational firm of accountants to comply with this sort of regulation, quite another to require a small firm or one-person business to do so. I was attracted at first by the outrage of colleagues who said that this proposal represented the state turning lawyers and others into policemen on their behalf – but as I read and researched, my views changed. We must bear in mind, as has already been said by the rapporteur, that the proposal we are considering is before us at our request, at the request of Parliament, because we wanted to get to grips with money-laundering, with this international crime which represents a substantial threat to the single market. I have been impressed by the results obtained in England by the Criminal Investigation Unit, working with lawyers under what are already very extensive rules and regulations, but respecting professional privilege. They have been particularly successful. We should learn from that experience. In Scotland, lawyers are encouraged to see tough rules as self-defence for lawyers, protecting them against the claim of involvement in crime. We should as a Parliament stick to our original desire to tackle money-laundering strongly as a manifestation of organized crime and it seems to me that perhaps this problem will come back to haunt us. It is a shame that we have not been able to deal with this problem as what it is, a matter of criminal law, but have had instead to deal with it within the strait-jacket of the internal market context.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the issue of discharge is an immense one for the institutions of the EU. Its importance is evident in the fact that in many cases it is now being proposed that the discharge should be postponed. As far as the Commission is concerned, this is the fifth year in succession that the Court of Auditors has not delivered an unambiguously favourable verdict. As the Member States, that is to say the Council, has advocated discharge, this is almost a matter of structural conflict. Apparently, the Court of Auditors should specify the shortcomings and incidences of malpractice in more detail and place less trust in mathematics. Although I say this, in no way does this diminish the Commission’s responsibility, which is a great one. The reports concerning discharge show just how badly administrative reforms are needed. Commissioner Kinnock’s package of reforms must be pushed through without delay. The main focus is the reform of internal auditing in each of the institutions. Administration and auditing must go hand in hand to preserve a sense of personal responsibility and help it grow. The present system, in which it takes various signatures to authorise payments, does away with the notion of personal responsibility. It is totally impossible to find anyone who will take responsibility. Improving the quality of administration is a basic requirement for a greater sense of responsibility and better efficiency. Increased control is only a reflection of the fact that the organisation has failed. The main financial difficulties focus on the largest budgetary category, agriculture. This is because agricultural aid is largely based either on land area or the number of livestock, and the Member State in question pays it. This development is largely due to the WTO agreement, which determines the various forms of agricultural aid, their classification and the desired trend it should adopt. The system has led to a tremendous amount of bureaucracy, an enormous increase in monitoring, and, in the long term, we can assume it will also lead to inefficiency and the entrepreneurial spirit of agriculture will vanish forever. At the same time, the European farmers have become the most closely observed section of the population on the Continent, and, for that reason, I am hoping for a lucid clarification of the agricultural aid system at the forthcoming WTO talks. Mr President, over the last few days we have read in the press that the European Parliament is a haven for thieves. This is both embarrassing and distasteful. We must act in such a way that EU property is treated with the same respect as other property. In this connection, we must check up on the matter of parliamentary administration. In the EU budget this year there is an appropriation of EUR 300 000 set aside for an investigation into parliamentary administration. According to the budget, this investigation will be given to an independent expert. What has happened to this investigation, why has it not got under way, and what is going to be done about it?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to endorse the congratulations and words of thanks to Mr Caudron. Mr Busquin, the Sixth Framework Programme has the great ambition of establishing a European Research Area, and I truly hope that the small, yet excellent, research teams which we even have in the more peripheral regions will be able to play a role in this. In European research, we must take a step forward both qualitatively and quantitatively speaking. Female researchers must have a part to play in this and in the next few years, forge ahead to take up leading positions in the research programme. Research which attempts to solve the mysteries of life remains important. That is not only applied research, but also fundamental research. There is no doubt that bio-genetics will create new opportunities in future in the fight against incurable diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and some forms of cancer. Within the parameters set out in the Caudron report, particularly in Amendment No 22, and under strict ethical supervision, including that of parliaments, we are of the view that it must be possible to finance stem cell research within the Member States’ legal framework. It is of the utmost importance for us to outline this ethical framework and for the European Parliament and the Member State parliaments to follow the developments in this field, for we must avoid at all cost that everything is allowed for some, as long as it is commercially viable, while nothing is allowed for others. We must be led by our conscience to jointly outline this framework, even if we fail to see eye to eye on this matter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mrs Hulthén on her work on this report. Action to tackle ozone layer degradation is considered to be one of the very few success stories of international environmental legislation, and since the mid-1990s ozone depletion does seem to have slowed down, mainly due to efforts to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances. But there is no room at all for complacency. We are a long way from achieving our goals. According to the European Environment Agency, in the summer of 1998 the ozone over Antarctica reached a record low level over an area the size of Europe, and the same thing is happening in the northern hemisphere. So ambitious targets must be set and they must be met. The Commission's original proposal is along the right lines. However, we believe that the Council weakened the text and so I would like to call on colleagues to support the amendments which were adopted in committee to improve the common position.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Ceyhun’s report deals with a very important matter, drugs policy, and especially the agency, the monitoring centre in Lisbon. My group considers this to be a very useful instrument, that has helped it to base its policy on facts. In view of the politicisation of all discussion about drugs, and the politicising coming out of the Netherlands is very convincing, we really cannot manage without a centre like this any more. The job of the centre, as the Commissioner just said, is to collect, standardise, analyse and compare data. To my surprise, an attempt is now being made in a series of amendments to broaden this task to include evaluating the policies of the Member States. That, however, is not something for a scientific-technical bureau or agency, that is remote from politics. Producing these evaluations is a job for politicians, and in order to be able to carry out these evaluations, we need to be given the resources through, for instance, this centre. My group finds it unacceptable for this policy to be put in the hands of technocrats, for this political task to be taken out of our hands. Apart from this core objection, on which our vote for the report ultimately depends, we still have a few other comments. We do not think Members of this Parliament should sit on the centre's management board, that is a constitutional monstrosity. We think that a couple of representatives appointed by us, who are not MEPs, as is the case now, is much better and this solution has also worked very well. We do not want to be inhibited in our supervisory role because we are sitting on the board of management ourselves. That is completely out of the question. Nor do we have anything against good contact with the director, who has to keep us informed about what is going on at the centre on a regular basis. That need not be our representatives, although we can, of course, also call them to account. Unlike the rapporteur, we think that an advisory board such as an executive committee, that prepares the meetings of the management board, is a good invention. With these comments the Group of the European People’s Party is following a route that others have taken before. I am assuming that the Council and the Commission also realise that a political mandate is something different from a professional mandate My group can give its unqualified assent to the other amendments of our esteemed rapporteur. Finally, I would also like to commend Commissioner Vitorino, who has responsibility for this matter, for the efforts on his part that I have experienced over the past few years.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to thank the Commissioner for his answer. In my view, Parliament has fought with him a successful battle towards a breakthrough in Doha on this score. He rejects a waiver, a moratorium or an exemption by way of solution, and we share his view on this. Regarding Articles 30 and 31, he states that he intends to obtain support so that what we set out to do there can actually be achieved. Needless to say, we are aware in this House of the pressure of the United States and also of a number of Member States. The pharmaceutical industry is probably behind this. What is now up for discussion is whether it is possible, if use is made of Article 31 – and you are aware that we are now awaiting the legal opinion which we have requested as Parliament – to assume that the country that at some stage asks to import a licence from a different country, is allowed to take this decision regarding its own health situation at its own discretion. Indeed, many legal experts claim that, where Article 31 is concerned, this decision is no longer in the hands of the country in question but is to be taken at WTO level. We would like to have certainty in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Malta is one of the twelve candidate countries which meets the general requirements set by the European Union on all counts. The Stenzel report gives us an excellent description of all these developments and I fully endorse it. However, there is the problem of why a significant proportion of the Maltese people, all of whom we welcome with open arms, has a number of objections and concerns. For example, the agricultural population totals 1000 people and agriculture is a problem for Malta and for these 1000 people. Perhaps they are worried that, because it is so small, a property developer could come and buy up the whole of Malta. Some other nations are worried about their cultural identity. The vision of Europe which we impart must be a vision which safeguards all the rights of the nations which accede at a later date, be they cultural, economic or social. In this sense, because our debates are often highly technocratic and focus solely on indicators, Maastricht, approximations and so on, we should understand that, for these nations, most of whom are experiencing economic problems, the economic factor takes precedence. If we want to bring these nations – and our own nations – on board, we need to show them a Europe of security, peace, culture and individuality, not just the sexual individuality which is often the subject of debate, but cultural individuality, because people do not just have multiple sexual needs, they also have multiple spiritual and cultural needs and linguistic diversity. In this sense, I think that Malta, which is Europe in miniature, is a good prospect; at the same time, however, we should use Malta to look at other aspects of our policies.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the opinion of the Communist Party of Greece, telecommunications are a sector of strategic importance and, as such, should be driven not by the quest for profit but by the desire to provide a better universal service. As part of the European Union's general policy of opening the doors of every sector of social activity to big business, the regulation which we are examining today gives the monopolies what is perhaps the most important chunk of the telecommunications network. This infrastructure, which has taken a long time and a great deal of public money to develop, is being offered for a mess of potage, with the telecommunications organisations receiving no more than maintenance and operating costs in exchange. The argument that this will allow new services to develop does not stand up, given that these services can be developed by the telecommunications organisations equally well and, without the strain of having to make huge profits, certainly more cheaply. The European Commission and the Council are not content with simply handing local loops to the private sector; oh no, they have to do it, and with what haste, in the form of a regulation which will apply immediately. I believe that we can draw useful conclusions from this example as to whose interests the European Union is actually serving.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to begin, as did the Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, by expressing my pleasure at the presence of President Romano Prodi in the meeting of that committee this morning. This was a first positive sign, which we cannot ignore, that the Commission is now prepared to listen to us more closely than it has done in the past, and we must therefore note this fact. I also wish to note something else that cannot be ignored and that is the fact that the internal hearings, both at central and Eurostat level, have worked well and independently. This is an extremely positive outcome of the current reform. Secondly, I wish to say that, where Eurostat is concerned, responsibilities must be defined, some mechanisms are working much more slowly than they should, but something is at last happening. I also wish to say that I fail to understand why the Publications Service, the body financially responsible for allocating funds to Planistat, has to date taken no action, opened no enquiry and held no one responsible. Why has the body that provided most of the appropriations misused by the company CSD – and this is a body that depends on external aid – not been called to account or been subject to any action, with everything carrying on as if nothing had happened outside Eurostat? If the Commission wants to have us believe that it is going to take the principle of accountability seriously, it is absolutely crucial that it adopt measures concerning these two Commission departments. Otherwise, we will not be able to take the Commission seriously.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, High Representative, it would appear that to the many enemies of peace that we know must be added improvisation and presumption, which, when employed by people in leading institutional positions, can have devastating effects. I am referring to the recent visit to Israel by the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, and to the fact that, in ten day’s time, Mr Berlusconi will take on the post of President-in-Office of the Council here in Brussels. I would point out that, after Ariel Sharon had proudly and artfully received him in the one, indivisible capital of the State of Israel, establishing quite a subversive interpretation of the Roadmap, Mr Berlusconi refused in exchange to meet Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen. On this matter, I agree with the French Foreign Minister, Mr De Villepin, when he said that Mr Berlusconi 'had not satisfied the European position', which is one of wisdom, of dialogue with all. I therefore call upon you, Mr President, to remind Mr Berlusconi, not as Head of the Italian Government but as future President-in-Office of the Council and representative of a European institution, that the duty and objective of the European institutions is not to display or demonstrate friendship to peoples but to pursue a single goal, that of peace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to concentrate purely on the issue of sanitation and I apologise to the Commissioner for not giving her advance notice of some questions I wish to pose. I would be most grateful if she would try to depart from her prepared remarks and deal with these issues. At Johannesburg she, on behalf of the European Union, was successful in securing agreement on ambitious targets to improve sanitation for billions of people within a relatively short period of time. The first year has passed and there has been lots of talk and plenty of paper, but if the targets are to be met, we need to see hundreds of wells, thousands of septic tanks, tens of thousands of pipes being laid each and every month. At a meeting in Parliament earlier today, the Commissioner reminded Members that EUR 1 billion had been set aside to start projects and she informed us that the Council had blocked the spending of this money. Commissioner, can you tell the House, has the Commission being putting forward specific proposals for the use of some of this money on projects to improve sanitation in developing nations? Has any expenditure at all been authorised by the Council or has everything been blocked? Has this refusal to release funds been universal; has it been entirely by agreement of the Council or has it been the case that some Member States have been instrumental in securing the blocking of expenditure? Finally Commissioner, if this is the case, how do you feel personally about the way in which the Council appears to be backsliding on the commitments made by the European Union at a summit where – and we take great pride in this fact – we played a leadership role?

Political group: ELDR
We have voted against the Draft Amending Budget 2/2002 of the European Union for the financial year 2002. At the committee meetings on 19 March and 9 April, it was decided that EUR 10 billion of the combined surplus of EUR 14 billion should be paid back to the Member States. Given that the Budget for 2002 shows a surplus of EUR 14 billion, it is unreasonable that only EUR 5.5 billion should now be transferred back to the Member States. We do not believe that this decision is rooted in the discussion held earlier in the committee. Because the Member States are not to get back the sum to which they are entitled, we are voting against the proposal. We are also conscious of the fact that the sum which is not now being paid out will, in principle, have to be paid out at a later stage. The Commission has already announced such large payment requirements for 2003 that there is a fear that the figure will far exceed the budget ceiling. That would entail very high expenditure for the Member States in anticipation of 2003 and 2004 when the budgeting requirements will increase prior to enlargement.

Political group: ELDR
The British Conservatives, like other centre-right parties across the European Union, are committed to properly-funded and high-quality public services and, if elected in June, to a massive increase in public spending of around GBP 62 billion on essential services like schools and hospitals. We therefore welcome paragraph 6 but we have reservations about the rest of the report, in particular paragraph 4, because we cannot agree that the 'golden rule' is a good example for Europe to follow. It is merely one of the many ways in which Gordon Brown succeeds in fiddling the figures. This report and the Stability and Growth Pact in the convergent programmes are clear evidence of the link between tax-and-spend policies and monetary policy. The pact applies to all EU Member States but the legal penalties are only applicable to those states in the euro zone: that is at the heart of our reservations about this report. One of the reasons why we oppose the United Kingdom joining the euro zone is because we wish to keep the power to set taxes, budgets and spending decisions in the hands of democratically-elected national politicians. Within the euro zone it is not surprising that constraints have been imposed on public spending decisions because if you have, to all intents and purposes, a joint bank account you are affected by the spending decisions of others and you can expect to want some control over those spending decisions. The recent example of Ireland is a salutary reminder that by joining the euro a country takes on more than a single interest rate: its tax-and-spend decisions will no longer be decided solely in national capitals. It is a prospect which most people in the United Kingdom view with disquiet, the prospect of following a budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ecofin, the Commission or the ECB informing that Chancellor that he or she is not permitted to increase spending on schools and hospitals and those services which are of such huge value to the people of the United Kingdom. This has already happened in Ireland and it could happen in the United Kingdom. But I would urge that the real route to economic prosperity in Europe is, as Mr Karas eloquently stated, structural and economic reform which will lead to sustainable prosperity, an increase in employment and a reduction in unemployment.

Political group: PPE-DE
On the pretext of technical measures (the manufacture of banknotes), the report proposes to undertake a campaign to promote the single currency. It is less a matter of speaking of the ‘practical aspects’ of the euro than of stressing its ‘fundamental significance’. It is true that the virtues of the euro do not seem to speak for themselves! Categorising the sceptics in advance as illiterates, partially sighted and hard of hearing does not make the report any more convincing. This document states that the Central European Bank has been using the euro for its monetary operations since 1 January without ever offering an explanation of the criteria of its exchange policy. The single currency is therefore not at all a democratic asset for the citizens of Europe, but a powerful tool of monetarism, as can be seen from the recent increase in the rate of interest. On the financial markets, the euro has been in place since 4 January 1999. The ordinary people – those who have never speculated on currencies – continue to travel and make purchases while having money extorted from them by bank committees. It is all the more scandalous as the currency rate will be fixed henceforth. The real questions are not being addressed: a single currency for whom and for what purpose? For all these reasons, I shall be voting against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL